Title
Turalba y Villegas vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 216453
Decision Date
Mar 16, 2022
Oligario Turalba y Villegas was convicted of carnapping after stealing Gregorio Calimag’s car in 2007. His insanity defense, citing psychosis from substance use, was rejected due to insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court upheld his 14-17 year sentence, affirming intent and lack of consent.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216453)

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Carnapping under RA No. 6539, as amended. All elements—unlawful taking, intent to gain, lack of consent—were established. The court rejected the insanity defense, deeming Dr. Evangelista’s single evaluation inconclusive. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of fourteen years and eight months minimum to seventeen years and four months maximum.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that petitioner’s lone psychiatric evaluation failed to prove complete deprivation of reason or will at the time of the offense. No evidence of abnormal behavior immediately before or during the carnapping was presented. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration, leading to this petition.

Issue on Insanity Defense

Petitioner contends that psychosis deprived him of voluntariness and free will, warranting exemption or, at minimum, mitigation under RPC Articles 12 and 13. He argues reliance on People v. Rafanan and People v. Antonio to support mitigation.

Legal Framework on Insanity

Under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code, an insane person is exempt from liability if deprived of reason or will at the time of the act. The accused bears the burden to prove insanity with clear and convincing evidence, focusing on the immediate period before or during the offense. Expert or lay opinion testimony must demonstrate total absence of discernment.

Supreme Court Analysis on Insanity

The Supreme Court found petitioner’s evidence insufficient. Dr. Evangelista saw him only once and could not identify the specific psychosis or confirm its presence at the time of the crime. No witness described abnormal conduct contemporaneous with the carnapping. Petitioner’s admission of the act meant the trial addressed sanity alone; having failed to prove insanity, conviction was proper.

Mitigating Circumstance Under Special Law

Petitioner’s claim for mitigation under Article 13(9) of the RPC is inapplicable to RA No. 6539

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.