People vs. Domingo

Insanity as an exempting circumstance requires a complete deprivation of intelligence at the moment of the crime, and mere abnormality of mental faculties or a post-crime diagnosis of schizophrenia is insufficient to exempt an accused from criminal liability.

Between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on 29 March 2000, Jesus Domingo kicked open the door of the Indon family residence in San Rafael, Bulacan, and attacked the sleeping family with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife, resulting in the deaths of Marvin and Melissa Indon, and injuries to Raquel, Michelle, Jeffer Indon, and neighbor Ronaldo Galvez.

• The Attack: Raquel Indon and her children were sleeping when Domingo forced entry into their home. Illuminated by the kitchen light, Raquel recognized Domingo, who was armed with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife. Domingo stabbed Raquel multiple times. When Raquel attempted to escape with her four-year-old son Marvin, Domingo stabbed her leg and then stabbed Marvin, who later died from his injuries. Domingo proceeded to attack Raquel's daughters, Melissa and Michelle; Melissa died from stab wounds, while Michelle survived by hiding. Domingo also struck two-year-old Jeffer on the head with a screwdriver; Jeffer managed to flee. Raquel ran for help, and neighbor Ronaldo Galvez intervened. Galvez was stabbed by Domingo but managed to subdue him with a piece of wood.
• The Defense: Domingo claimed he suffered from sleeplessness, lack of appetite, and nervousness nine days prior to the incident, and heard voices telling him to kill. He asserted he had no recollection of the events of 29 March 2000. A defense witness, Dr. Afroilan, testified that a 2004 psychiatric evaluation diagnosed Domingo with Schizophrenia, although he admitted the findings did not cover the appellant's mental state at the time of the crime.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC rejected the insanity defense, noting that Domingo's response to Raquel's pleas demonstrated discernment, and convicted him of homicide and frustrated/attempted homicide. The CA affirmed the credibility of Raquel's testimony, appreciated treachery because the victims were asleep or were minors, and convicted Domingo of murder, attempted murder, and frustrated murder, except for frustrated homicide regarding Galvez.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Petitioner argued that Raquel Indon's testimony was inconsistent and contrary to ordinary human experience, specifically regarding her exchange with her sister-in-law during the attack and the physical impossibility of being stabbed on the front of her legs after falling.
• Exempting Circumstance of Insanity: Petitioner maintained that he was completely deprived of intelligence during the commission of the crimes, warranting exemption from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as evidenced by his auditory hallucinations, lack of memory of the incident, and subsequent diagnosis of Schizophrenia.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Respondent countered that the alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details that did not impair the witness's credibility on material points, and her testimony was corroborated by medico-legal reports.
• Insanity Defense: Respondent argued that the defense of insanity failed because the psychiatric evaluation was conducted four years after the crime, and insanity must relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment of the felony; moreover, petitioner's statements during the attack indicated unimpaired reasoning.

• Credibility of Witness: Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the principal prosecution witness warrant the reversal of the conviction.
• Insanity: Whether the accused-appellant is exempt from criminal liability by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the crimes.
• Treachery: Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated to qualify the crimes to murder, attempted murder, and frustrated murder.

• Credibility of Witness: The alleged inconsistencies pertained to peripheral details and did not affect the substance of the testimony. The brief exchange with the sister-in-law was not unusual, and the stabbing of the front of the legs was physically possible depending on the position of the fall. The testimony was corroborated by medico-legal evidence.
• Insanity: The defense of insanity was rejected. The law presumes every person to be of sound mind, and the burden of proving insanity at the precise moment of the crime lies with the accused. Mere abnormality of mental faculties, such as sleeplessness or hallucinations, does not equate to total deprivation of will or discernment. A post-crime diagnosis of Schizophrenia is insufficient to prove insanity at the time of the commission. Petitioner's statement, "Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na," demonstrated awareness and unimpaired reasoning during the attack.
• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is a deliberate and unexpected attack that affords the victim no chance to resist. The victims were asleep and defenseless when attacked without warning. Furthermore, the killing of minor children by an adult is inherently treacherous.

• Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance — Exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, meaning the accused acts without the least discernment due to a total absence of power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of mental faculties is insufficient. The burden is on the accused to prove insanity immediately before or at the very moment of the crime. Medical findings of mental disorder referring to a period after the crime was committed will not exempt the accused from criminal liability.
• Treachery — The essence is a deliberate and unexpected attack, executed swiftly and without warning, affording the hapless and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. An attack on a sleeping victim is treacherous. The killing of a minor child by an adult is likewise considered treacherous.
• Damages in Murder/Homicide — Civil indemnity is mandatory upon proof of death. Moral damages are mandatory in murder and homicide without need of proof other than the death of the victim. Exemplary damages are awarded when a qualifying circumstance is proven. Temperate damages of ₱25,000.00 are proper when no evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented.

• "Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act; i.e., when the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is total deprivation of freedom of the will."
• "The alleged insanity of an accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the felony is committed, not at any time thereafter."

• People v. Madarang, 387 Phil. 846 (2000) — Followed. The fact that an accused had no prior quarrel with the victim does not prove an unstable mental condition or insanity.
• People v. Cruz, 429 Phil. 511 (2002) — Followed. The killing by an adult of a minor child is treacherous.
• People v. Florendo, 459 Phil. 470 (2003) — Followed. Mere abnormality of mental faculties will not exclude imputability; insanity must be proven at the precise moment of the crime.

• Article 12, Revised Penal Code — Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. Applied to reject the defense of insanity because the accused failed to prove complete deprivation of intelligence at the moment of the crime.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Murder. Applied to convict the accused of murder, qualified by treachery, for the deaths of Marvin and Melissa Indon.
• Article 64[1], Revised Penal Code — Rules for the application of penalties when neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances are present. Applied to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua in its medium period for murder.
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Temperate damages. Applied to award ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of the deceased victims due to the lack of receipts for funeral expenses.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Diosdado M. Peralta