People vs. Marzan

The defense of insanity under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code requires proof of complete deprivation of intelligence, will, or power to discern at the time of the commission of the crime, such that a diagnosis of schizophrenia or mere abnormality of mental faculties, without evidence of total absence of the power to discern, does not exempt the accused from criminal liability.

On May 22, 2003, at approximately 1:30 p.m. in Camiling, Tarlac, Carpio Marzan y Lutan attacked his two brothers. Apolonio Marzan was bedridden and recuperating from illness when the accused-appellant entered his house and stabbed him to death. When Bernardo Marzan attempted to intervene and placate the accused-appellant, he was stabbed in the stomach but survived after receiving medical treatment. The accused-appellant claimed he was suffering from psychosis classified as schizophrenia and was therefore exempt from criminal liability.

• The Attack: On May 22, 2003, at around 1:30 p.m., accused-appellant entered the house of his bedridden brother Apolonio while uttering "agda kalaban ko" (I have an enemy). Erlinda Cabiltes, Apolonio's daughter, heard her father screaming "apay Aping?" (why Aping?) and "uston Aping!" (enough Aping!). She saw accused-appellant emerge wearing a blood-stained shirt and holding a bladed instrument dripping with blood. Lolita Rombaoa also witnessed the accused-appellant exit the house with a blood-stained weapon.
• Assault on Bernardo: Bernardo Marzan attempted to placate accused-appellant, but the latter responded, "you are also one of them," and stabbed Bernardo in the stomach. Bernardo ran away and received medical treatment that prevented his death.
• Medical Evidence: Dr. Valentin Theodore Lumibao conducted an autopsy on Apolonio, determining the cause of death as hypovolemic shock secondary to massive internal bleeding due to multiple penetrating stab wounds.
• Defense of Insanity: Isabel Marzan, the accused-appellant's wife, testified that her husband suffered from behavioral problems, often appeared nervous and "tulala" (staring blankly), and had been diagnosed with psychosis/schizophrenia by the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH). She recounted that on the day of the incident, accused-appellant was mumbling "kesa ako ang maunahan nila, unahan ko na sila" (Rather than let them get me first, I'll get them first) before running towards Apolonio's house with a bolo. After the stabbing, he sat down and remained "tulala" until police arrived and handcuffed him.
• Evidence of Sanity: Isabel also testified that accused-appellant worked as a tricycle driver, possessed a valid driver's license, and had never been involved in accidents or quarrels. The RTC noted that after the stabbing, accused-appellant helped his mother stand up after she fell and embraced him, and he surrendered his bolo to the responding policemen.

• Complete Deprivation of Intelligence: Accused-appellant maintained that he was suffering from psychosis classified as schizophrenia, as found by Dr. Roxas of the NCMH, which completely deprived him of intelligence and will at the time of the commission of the crime, thereby exempting him from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Absence of Treachery: Petitioner argued that the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery, contending that the attack was not deliberately executed in a manner ensuring the victim's inability to defend himself.
• Voluntary Surrender: Petitioner claimed that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been appreciated, as he did not resist arrest and was sitting calmly when the police arrived.

• Presumption of Sanity: Respondent countered that the presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind, and the defense failed to overcome this presumption by proving complete deprivation of intelligence at the exact moment of the crime. Mere schizophrenia or intermittent behavioral abnormalities do not equate to total absence of the power to discern.
• Presence of Treachery: Respondent argued that treachery was properly appreciated because Apolonio was bedridden, recuperating from illness, and completely defenseless when attacked, ensuring the accused-appellant's safety from any retaliatory act.
• Lack of Voluntary Surrender: Respondent maintained that voluntary surrender was not established because accused-appellant did not spontaneously and unconditionally submit himself to authorities to acknowledge guilt or save them the trouble of capture; he was merely sitting at the curb when police arrived and handcuffed him.

• Defense of Insanity: Whether the accused-appellant was completely deprived of intelligence or will at the time of the commission of the crime so as to be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Treachery: Whether the killing of Apolonio Marzan was attended by treachery qualifying the crime to murder.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code should be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant.

• Defense of Insanity: The defense was rejected. Schizophrenia, characterized by intermittent periods of remissions and exacerbations, does not automatically constitute the complete deprivation of intelligence required for exemption. The accused-appellant's actions—uttering threats, helping his mother stand after she fell, possessing a driver's license, and working as a tricycle driver—demonstrated that he retained the power to discern and was not totally deprived of will.
• Treachery: Treachery was properly appreciated. The two requisites were present: (1) the employment of means that ensured the offender's safety from retaliation, and (2) the deliberate choice of such means. The attack on the bedridden and unprepared Apolonio was sudden and unexpected, depriving him of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
• Voluntary Surrender: The mitigating circumstance was not appreciated. Accused-appellant merely remained sitting at the curb when police responded; there was no showing that he unconditionally surrendered to acknowledge guilt or to save the authorities the trouble of searching for him. Furthermore, for the crime of murder, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is indivisible under Republic Act No. 9346, rendering modifying circumstances irrelevant for purposes of graduation.

• Defense of Insanity — To be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, the defense must prove that the accused was completely deprived of intelligence, reason, or the power to discern immediately prior to or at the time of the commission of the crime. Mere abnormality of mental faculties, or a diagnosis of schizophrenia showing intermittent disturbances without proof of total deprivation of will, is insufficient to establish insanity as an exempting circumstance.
• Treachery — Under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code, treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to insure the crime's execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. The requisites are: (1) employment of means ensuring the offender's safety from retaliation, leaving the victim no opportunity for self-defense; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of such means. The essence is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack on an unsuspecting victim.
• Indivisible Penalties — When the penalty prescribed by law is indivisible (such as reclusion perpetua for murder under Republic Act No. 9346), the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances is irrelevant for purposes of graduating the penalty, as the single indivisible penalty must be imposed regardless of modifying circumstances.
• Voluntary Surrender — Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, voluntary surrender requires that the offender spontaneously and unconditionally submit himself to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense of searching for and capturing him. Mere non-resistance or passive submission to arrest does not constitute voluntary surrender.

• "It is settled that the moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. Otherwise stated, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously. Therefore, whoever invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence."
• "To be entitled to this exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, the defense must prove that the accused was deprived of intelligence immediately prior to or at the time of the commission of the crime."
• "The essence therefore of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack on an unsuspecting victim thereby depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor."
• "The consideration of any mitigating circumstance in [accused-appellant's] favor would be superfluous because, although the imposable penalty under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death, the prohibition to impose the death penalty pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 rendered reclusion perpetua as the only penalty for murder, which penalty, being indivisible, could not be graduated in consideration of any modifying circumstances."

• People v. Guzman, 542 Phil. 152 (2007) — Cited for the definition and requisites of treachery under Article 14(16) of the Revised Penal Code.
• People v. Lota, G.R. No. 219580, January 24, 2018 — Applied for the rule that modifying circumstances are irrelevant when the penalty is indivisible (reclusion perpetua).
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed for the current rates of damages in criminal cases (civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages).

• Article 12, Revised Penal Code — Exempting circumstances; specifically, the provision regarding insanity as a complete defense requiring deprivation of intelligence, reason, or will.
• Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code — Mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
• Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code — Treachery as a qualifying aggravating circumstance.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Definition of Murder and its penalty (reclusion perpetua to death).
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Definition of Homicide and its penalty (reclusion temporal).
• Article 250, Revised Penal Code — Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide (one degree lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony).
• Republic Act No. 9346 — An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, rendering reclusion perpetua the sole penalty for murder.

Leonardo-De Castro, C.J., Bersamin, and Gesmundo, JJ.

N/A (A. Reyes, Jr., J. was on leave).