People of the Philippines vs. Magallano

One who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance bears the burden of proving it by clear and positive evidence showing complete deprivation of intelligence or total deprivation of freedom of the will at the time of the act. Mere abnormality of behavior or mental faculties does not exclude imputability, and the presumption that acts are done with free will and intelligence prevails absent such proof.

Andres Magallano was lawfully married to Exequiela Costa. Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the killing of a lawful spouse and carries reclusion perpetua. Criminal exemption on the ground of insanity requires proof of complete deprivation of reason or discernment at the time of commission.

Andres Magallano was the lawful husband of Exequiela Costa, whose marriage was evidenced by a certificate issued by the parish priest of San Pedro, Davao City. In the early morning of September 29, 1968, after an exchange of heated words stemming from his suspicion that she had been unfaithful, Magallano strangled her to death with his bare hands in the bushes about 50 meters from the house of Crispin Orais in Cabantian, Davao City.

On October 1, 1968, Magallano went to the nearby house of Peping Orais, also identified as Crispin Orais, to confide the killing. According to Orais, Magallano arrived sweating with his face covered with blood, inquired about his father Diego Magallano's whereabouts, and when asked about his appearance replied that he had smashed his head against a tree as if he had lost his mind because he had choked his wife to death. Orais observed that Magallano was all right although at times he appeared out of his mind because he could not easily answer questions. Magallano pointed to the place where the killing occurred.

Thereafter, accompanied by his father, Magallano voluntarily surrendered to the Davao City Police Department and confirmed reports that he had strangled his wife. Lt. Exequiel Untalan registered the surrender in the police blotter and indorsed Magallano to the Homicide Section. Upon investigation by Patrolman Noe Baita, Magallano confessed to the strangling, with all answers described as spontaneous and voluntary. Lt. Rafael Panal repaired to the scene, found the cadaver in the bushes, and brought it to the city morgue where Dr. Juan Abear autopsied it on October 2, 1968 and found the cause of death to be asphyxia due to choking or strangulation, the victim having been dead more than 30 hours but less than 60 hours at discovery. Assistant City Fiscal Josefino Fuentes testified that he translated the extrajudicial confession from English to Visayan for Magallano, who swore to its truth and admitted signing it voluntarily. Panal observed that although some questions had to be repeated, Magallano was remorseful and talked coherently.

For the defense, Arturo Magallano, the accused's son, testified that in April 1968 his father uttered improper or incorrect words and once almost tied his neck with a rope to commit suicide, yet after transfer to Cabacan-Bucana in 1968 fished three times a week and dictated the prices at which Arturo sold the catch. Neighbor Luisa Bacala, 64, stated Magallano used to accuse his wife of having a paramour and once ran toward the pier while his family followed. Neighbor Ricardo Dayala, 64, stated Magallano would peep when his wife went downstairs for fuel wood and would talk and laugh at the same time when questioned, though sometimes acting sanely. Diego Magallano, the father, testified that in the first week of April 1968 he received a telegram from Magallano's wife that Magallano was sickly, stayed a month with him in Maasin, Leyte, observed him as somewhat insane for baselessly insisting his wife had a paramour, and had him treated by a quack doctor; after the killing he saw his son near his wife's dead body saying he killed her because she no longer loved him, with bloodied face from bumping his head against a tree to kill himself. Psychiatric examinations over March to May 1969 found Magallano quiet, in good contact with environment, coherent and relevant, oriented to date, place and person, without bizarre behavior, hallucinations or delusions, and able to relate the event leading to jail confinement. The trial judge, observing Magallano's conduct, appearance, demeanor and behavior at every trial appearance, found no symptom of insanity and noted he behaved better than some neighbors around him.

• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance: Petitioner maintained that he was mentally disordered at the time of the killing, relying on testimonies of his father, son, and neighbors regarding improper speech, unfounded jealousy, suicide attempts, and odd behavior to establish exemption from criminal liability.
• Admissibility of Medical Reports: Petitioner questioned the admissibility of the government doctors' medical reports as hearsay since their contents were not testified to in court by said doctors.
• Expert Testimony and Offer of Proof: Petitioner attempted to adduce expert testimony through hypothetical questions based on modern psychiatry and assailed the trial court's handling of the defense's formal offer of proof as a denial.

• Failure to Prove Legal Insanity: Respondent countered that the defense failed to prove the accused was legally insane at commission, the evidence not outweighing certifications of government psychiatric doctors who closely observed him for a month and a half and found good contact with environment and coherent narration.
• Sanity Shown by Conduct After the Act: Respondent argued that sweating with bloodied face from striking his head against a tree in atonement, voluntary surrender, coherent confessions, and remorse revealed awareness of wrongdoing consistent with sanity.
• Credibility of Official Observations and Work Capacity: Respondent maintained that observations of police officers and the City Fiscal that the accused answered coherently and intelligently were entitled to full credence absent improper motive, reinforced by his capacity to fish for a living and fix prices and by the trial judge's courtroom observation of normal behavior.

• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance: Whether the accused was legally insane at the time he strangled his wife so as to exempt him from criminal liability for parricide.
• Admissibility of Psychiatric Reports: Whether the government doctors' medical reports on mental condition were inadmissible as hearsay absent in-court testimony by the doctors.
• Exclusion of Defense Expert and Offer of Proof: Whether the trial court erred in excluding the defense expert's hypothetical testimony and in its treatment of the defense's formal offer of proof.

• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance: No. Insanity was not established, the defense having failed to prove by clear and positive evidence complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of will at commission.
• Admissibility of Psychiatric Reports: No error. The reports formed part of the records of which the prosecution invited judicial notice, with no objection registered by the defense at resting of the case.
• Exclusion of Defense Expert and Offer of Proof: No error. The hypothetical questions related to unproven and disputed factual allegations by a witness who had not examined the accused, and the trial court did not deny the verbal motion but suggested incorporation in a memorandum while thoroughly considering defense evidence.

• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance: Insanity in law requires complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act — deprivation of reason, action without least discernment, complete absence of power to discern, or total deprivation of freedom of will — while mere abnormality of mental faculties does not exclude imputability. The burden rested on the accused invoking insanity, yet psychiatric certifications after prolonged observation found no bizarre behavior, good environmental contact, coherent and relevant answers, orientation, and ability to relate confinement circumstances. Contemporaneous conduct confirmed sanity: self-inflicted head injury was characterized as remorse or self-reproach evidencing awareness of wrongdoing; voluntary surrender and detailed extrajudicial confession were found spontaneous, coherent and intelligent by disinterested officers; pre-offense fishing and price-setting showed functional capacity; and the trial judge observed normal courtroom demeanor. Unusual behaviors proved at most eccentricities, and the presumption of sanity was not overcome by mere abnormality.
• Admissibility of Psychiatric Reports: The reports were properly considered because they formed part of the records and the defense failed to register any objection when the prosecution specifically invited the court to take judicial notice of its records at resting of the case. Evidence of sane acts, conduct and declarations during the same period was admissible to rebut insanity claims, more so at the time of the crime and thereafter.
• Exclusion of Defense Expert and Offer of Proof: The expert was properly excluded when made to answer hypothetical questions tied to allegations of fact not proven and disputed by the prosecution, where he had not actually examined the accused and testified only on contents of a book on modern psychiatry without reference to actual proven facts on mental condition. The transcript showed the trial court did not deny the verbal motion for formal offer but suggested stating anything else in a memorandum, and in any event thorough consideration was given to defense evidence.

• Legal Insanity as Exempting Circumstance — Insanity exists only when there is complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, meaning the accused is deprived of reason and acts without the least discernment because of complete absence of power to discern, or there is total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of mental faculties does not exclude imputability. Applied to affirm parricide liability where odd behavior, unfounded jealousy, and isolated eccentricities did not show total loss of reason or will.
• Burden of Proof for Insanity; Presumption of Sanity — The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance, to be proved by clear and positive evidence, against the legal presumption that a person's acts are of his own free will and intelligence. Applied to sustain conviction where psychiatric findings and coherent post-offense conduct outweighed lay testimony of abnormality.
• Remorse and Post-Offense Conduct as Indicia of Sanity — Voluntary surrender, coherent confession, capacity for ordinary work, and remorse or self-reproach manifesting awareness of wrongdoing are rational feelings and conduct inconsistent with complete deprivation of intelligence. Applied where head-banging in atonement, surrender, and intelligible answers to investigators evidenced consciousness of guilt.
• Rebuttal of Insanity by Contemporaneous Sane Acts — Whenever evidence of acts, conduct or declarations is introduced to prove insanity, the prosecution may offer evidence of other acts, conduct and declarations during the same period to show sanity, more so at the time of commission and thereafter, with irrational acts treated as mere lapses into which humans occasionally fall. Applied to credit official observations and psychiatric certifications over lay claims of insanity.

• "The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence." — States the controlling burden rule for the insanity defense and the evidentiary standard the accused failed to meet.
• "insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will; mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability." — Gives the canonical legal definition of insanity adopted from People vs. Renegado and applied to reject mere eccentricities as exemption.
• "The presumption of sanity is not overcome by mere abnormality of behavior." — Articulates why the defense lay testimony of odd conduct could not prevail over psychiatric findings and rational post-offense behavior.

• People vs. Renegado, L-27031, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA 275, 286 — Followed as authority for the definition of legal insanity and the rule that insanity must be proved by clear and positive evidence by the one invoking it.
• People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, October 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468, 472, 474-475 — Cited to support that presumption of sanity is not overcome by mere abnormality of behavior.

• Article 246, Revised Penal Code — Defines and punishes parricide with reclusion perpetua and accessories of law; applied to sentence Andres Magallano for strangling his lawful wife, with indemnity to heirs and costs.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.