People vs. Macalindong

A killing carried out impulsively during a domestic quarrel, without proof that the aggressor deliberately and consciously adopted the means of attack to ensure its execution without risk, constitutes homicide, not murder, even if multiple stab wounds were inflicted. An accused who invokes insanity must present competent expert testimony establishing a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the crime; a mere claim of amnesia or an unauthenticated diagnosis of schizophrenia is insufficient.

In the evening of February 10, 2007, inside the family home in Sitio Riverside, Barangay Pakyas, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, appellant Leonardo Macalindong and his live-in partner Jovelia Malinao quarreled. Their seven-year-old daughter Lyn Joy was present. Appellant grabbed a knife and stabbed Jovelia multiple times. Jovelia died at the scene. Appellant later claimed he had blacked out and could not remember the incident, relying on medical documents indicating he suffered from schizophrenia.

• The Charge: Appellant Leonardo Macalindong was charged with the murder of his live-in partner Jovelia Malinao. The Information alleged that on February 10, 2007, around 8:00 p.m., in their home in Barangay Pakyas, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, appellant, armed with a bladed instrument, attacked and stabbed Jovelia multiple times with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, causing her instantaneous death.

• Prosecution’s Evidence:

  • Seven-year-old Lyn Joy Macalindong, the daughter of appellant and the victim, testified that she was inside the house when her parents quarreled. She saw appellant stab Jovelia with a knife approximately twenty-two times. After the stabbing, appellant left the house. Lyn Joy approached her mother, who was already dead.
  • The prosecution and defense stipulated to the following: SPO4 Henry Malitao and PO3 Rhoda Macabata received information about the killing, recorded the incident in the police blotter, proceeded to the scene, found appellant embracing his two children, and interviewed Lyn Joy, who identified appellant as the perpetrator. Appellant was arrested and informed of his Miranda rights. Another daughter, Jealavia Malinao, executed a sworn affidavit stating that Lyn Joy told her appellant stabbed their mother. Dr. Ma. Virginia Valdez, the Municipal Health Officer, examined the victim’s body, documented her findings, and issued the death certificate.

• Defense’s Evidence:

  • Appellant testified that he could not remember the events of February 10, 2007, claiming he blacked out and regained consciousness only after he was already inside the provincial jail. He was uncertain whether he was responsible for Jovelia’s death.

  • The defense submitted an Initial Report dated March 10, 2008 from the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) and a Medical Certificate dated November 9, 2007 issued by Dr. Florecita Lindo, both indicating that appellant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Neither Dr. Lindo nor any other expert witness was presented to authenticate these documents or to testify about the nature, extent, or temporal connection of appellant’s condition to the killing.

  • Trial Court’s Findings: The RTC gave full credence to Lyn Joy’s positive identification. It found that treachery attended the killing because appellant suddenly attacked Jovelia, who was unaware and defenseless. Evident premeditation was not appreciated due to lack of evidence. The court imposed reclusion perpetua and ordered the payment of P100,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, and P50,000.00 exemplary damages.

• Insanity: Appellant argued that the trial court should have given credence to his defense of mental illness. He pointed out that the court itself had deferred his arraignment, referred him to the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Hospital and then to the NCMH, and received medical findings confirming schizophrenia. He maintained that his blackout on the day of the incident precluded criminal liability.

• Treachery and Abuse of Superior Strength: Appellant contended that there was no evidence the attack was sudden or that Jovelia was unaware of an impending attack so as to render her defenseless. He faulted the trial court for appreciating treachery on the basis of inadequate proof.

• Sufficiency of the Child-Witness Testimony: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that Lyn Joy’s testimony was positive, credible, and sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The fact that she was a minor child of the accused who directly witnessed the killing lent particular weight to her account.

• Qualifying Circumstances: The OSG argued that treachery was established by the fact that appellant stabbed the victim multiple times with a knife inside their home and in the presence of their children. It further submitted that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength could also be appreciated because appellant was an adult male armed with a knife, and the victim was a woman utterly overpowered by him.

• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance: Whether appellant should be exempted from criminal liability on the ground that he was suffering from schizophrenia and had allegedly blacked out at the time he killed Jovelia.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether the killing was attended by treachery or abuse of superior strength so as to qualify the crime as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Insanity as Exempting Circumstance: The defense of insanity was rejected. Insanity under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code requires a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act—a total absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. It is an affirmative defense in the nature of confession and avoidance, and the burden lies on the accused to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. Appellant merely claimed amnesia and submitted a medical certificate and an NCMH initial report that were never authenticated by the issuing physicians. No expert witness explained whether, and to what extent, the schizophrenia deprived appellant of intelligence at the precise time of the stabbing. The records were silent on any conduct, appearance, or irrational acts observed by his family or others immediately before or during the incident. Without competent proof linking the mental illness to the exact moment of the crime, the presumption of sanity stood unrebutted.

• Qualifying Circumstances: The killing did not constitute murder because neither treachery nor abuse of superior strength was proved. Treachery demands proof of two elements: (1) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution that ensures the offender’s safety from defensive or retaliatory acts, giving the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of such means. The daughter’s testimony showed that the stabbing occurred while appellant and Jovelia were quarreling. Appellant acted impulsively, caught in the heat of the moment; everything transpired quickly and without evident logic, cunning, or strategy. The suddenness of the attack, standing alone, did not rise to the level of treachery, which cannot be presumed and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Abuse of superior strength requires a notorious inequality of forces that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor, who purposely selects or takes advantage of that inequality to facilitate the crime. While appellant was an adult male armed with a knife, the inequality was not shown to have been consciously sought or deliberately exploited. The impulsive nature of the attack negated the element of conscious, purposeful selection of advantage. Consequently, the crime was reduced to homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, all elements of which were established: the victim was killed, the accused killed her without any justifying circumstance, intent to kill was manifest from the twenty-two stab wounds, and no qualifying circumstance of murder or relationship giving rise to parricide was proved.

• Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance — Under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code, insanity exempts from criminal liability only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the act. The accused bears the burden of proving insanity with clear and convincing evidence. The condition must be shown by opinion testimony from an expert witness, or by the testimony of persons intimately acquainted with the accused who can describe irrational behavior, conduct, and appearance immediately preceding or contemporaneous with the commission of the offense. A mere diagnosis of a mental illness, without a demonstrated nexus to the precise moment of the crime, is insufficient.

• Treachery; Requisites and Proof — The elements of treachery are: (a) the employment of means, methods, or manner of execution that ensures the offender’s safety from defensive or retaliatory acts, giving the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and (b) the deliberate or conscious adoption of such means. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be presumed. The suddenness of an attack, without more, does not establish treachery; there must be a showing that the mode of attack was deliberately chosen to ensure execution without risk to the offender. An attack delivered impulsively during a sudden quarrel does not satisfy this requirement.

• Abuse of Superior Strength; Conscious Selection Required — To appreciate abuse of superior strength, the prosecution must prove: (a) a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the latter; and (b) the aggressor purposely selected or took advantage of that inequality to facilitate the commission of the crime. The fact that the accused is an adult male armed with a knife while the victim is a female does not ipso facto constitute abuse of superior strength; there must be evidence of deliberate intent to exploit that advantage. Where the attack is impulsive, the qualifying circumstance cannot attach.

• Positive Identification by a Minor Witness — The testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction for a grave felony. The testimony of a child who identifies a parent as the killer of the other parent is given great weight, given the natural respect and reverence Filipino children hold for their elders, making it improbable that they would fabricate such a serious accusation.

• “Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, i.e., when the accused is deprived of reason, he or she 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 legal teaching consistently maintained in our jurisprudence is that the plea of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance.”

• “The issue of insanity is a question of fact for insanity is a condition of the mind, not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man can know what is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person’s mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.”

• “A finding of treachery should be based on clear and convincing evidence. The same ought to be as conclusive as the fact of killing itself. Its existence cannot be presumed. As with the finding of guilt of the accused, any doubt as to the existence of treachery should be resolved in favor of the accused. The fact that the attack was unexpected cannot be the sole basis of a finding of treachery even if the attack was intended to kill another so long as the victim’s position was merely accidental.”

• “To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of the attendance of this qualifying or aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.”

• People v. Madarang, 387 Phil. 846 (2000) — Established the stringent criterion that insanity requires a complete deprivation of intelligence, not mere abnormality of mental faculties; relied upon by the Court for the test of exempting insanity.

• People v. Domingo, 599 Phil. 589 (2009) — Followed; in that case, an uncorroborated claim of schizophrenia and amnesia was held insufficient to prove insanity, paralleling appellant’s failure to present expert testimony or corroborative accounts of his behavior.

• Cirera v. People, 739 Phil. 25 (2014) — Applied for the standard that treachery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and that the suddenness of an attack alone is not enough.

• People v. Miraña, 831 Phil. 215 (2018) — Applied; the difference in age and sex between the victim and the accused, without more, was considered insufficient to conclude abuse of superior strength.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied for the proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages in homicide cases where no aggravating circumstance is proven.

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied in correcting the accrual date of legal interest on unliquidated damages, which should run from the finality of judgment, not from the filing of the Information.

• Article 12(1), Revised Penal Code — Exempting circumstance of insanity. The Court ruled that appellant failed to prove that his schizophrenia amounted to a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the killing.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Murder; defining the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength. The prosecution did not meet the evidentiary threshold to establish either circumstance.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Homicide. The elements of homicide were established, and appellant was convicted thereunder.

• Section 1, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended — Applied to impose an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term being that properly imposable under the Revised Penal Code for homicide, and the minimum being within the range of the penalty next lower in degree.

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chairperson), Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez concurred. Justice Mario V. Lopez was on official leave.