People vs. Opuran

The exempting circumstance of insanity requires clear and convincing evidence of complete deprivation of intelligence at the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense, and a post-incident psychiatric evaluation based on incomplete data, without proof of the accused's mental state at the precise moment of the act, does not overcome the presumption of sanity.

Anacito Opuran had a psychiatric history dating back to 1986, when his sister Remedios brought him to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) in Mandaluyong for inability to sleep and talking irrelevantly. He was treated as an out-patient and prescribed thorazine and evadyne, with follow-up visits in 1989 and a referral to the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC) in Catbalogan in 1990. From 1991 until 1999, he received no treatment or examination. On November 19, 1998, two fatal stabbing incidents occurred in Catbalogan, Samar, resulting in the deaths of Allan Dacles and Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., for which Anacito was charged with two counts of murder.

On November 19, 1998, at about 6:30 p.m., prosecution witness Bambi Herrera was studying inside his house while his brother and a certain Jason Masbang sat outside on a plastic chair. Opposite them was Allan Dacles, lying on a bench. Moments later, Jason barged into Bambi's house shouting about a long-haired man. Bambi looked through the open door and saw appellant Anacito Opuran stab Allan on the chest with a knife while Allan appeared to be trying to stand up from the bench. Despite sustaining several stab wounds, Allan managed to stand up and run inside Bambi's house, with Anacito chasing him. Bambi immediately locked the door from the inside, but Anacito tried to force it open by thrusting a knife at the door shutter and throwing stones. After a short while, Anacito left.

With Anacito gone, Bambi went out to seek aid from his neighbors. He encountered Anacito's two brothers and asked for their assistance, but one merely dismissed the plea, saying Anacito was mentally imbalanced. As nobody responded, Bambi carried Allan on his shoulders and dragged him to the lower portion of the neighborhood, where several persons having a drinking session helped bring Allan to the hospital. Allan died about fifteen minutes later.

At about 7:45 p.m. of the same evening, prosecution witness Tomas Bacsal, Jr. was at the house of Demetrio Patrimonio, Sr., seeking medical advice from the latter's wife. Tomas heard a commotion outside and learned that Anacito had stabbed somebody. About fifteen minutes later, while Tomas was on his way home, he saw Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr. and noticed Anacito hiding in a dark place near the so-called "lover's lane" on the national highway. When Demetrio Jr. reached that spot, Anacito emerged from his hiding place and stabbed him three to four times. Tomas ran to inform the Demetrios, saw Demetrio Jr. running toward his parents' house before collapsing near the fence, and caught sight of Anacito running toward the direction of the Opurans' house. Demetrio Jr. was brought to the Samar Provincial Hospital, where he died the following day.

Dr. Angel Tan, Medical Specialist II of the Samar Provincial Hospital, conducted autopsies on both victims. Allan sustained five stab wounds, one of which was fatal, affecting the upper lobe of the right lung and bronchial vessel. Demetrio Jr. sustained four stab wounds and died of pulmonary failure due to hypovolemia from external and internal hemorrhage.

For the defense, Anacito testified that on the evening of November 19, 1998, he was resting in their house in Canlapwas, another barangay in Catbalogan, and never went out. He claimed that at about 8:30 p.m., eight policemen entered his house, pointed guns at him, and arrested him. He denied being present at the scene and asserted the accusations were fabricated because he was envied and lowly regarded by his accusers. His brother Francisco, however, testified that at about 6:00 p.m. that evening, he heard loud voices outside, Anacito went out, and Francisco later saw him at the corner of the street carrying a knife. Francisco surmised Anacito had committed a crime, hugged him, and brought him to Remedios' house. Before the incident, Francisco had observed Anacito to be sometimes laughing, shouting, uttering bad words, and at other times silent.

The defense later shifted to a plea of insanity. Anacito's sister Remedios testified that she brought him to the NCMH in 1986 for difficulty sleeping and talking irrelevantly, where he was treated as an out-patient and prescribed thorazine and evadyne. They returned in 1989 and were referred to the EVRMC in Catbalogan in 1990, where an injectable medicine was prescribed. From 1991 until 1999, Anacito received no treatment or examination. Dr. Lyn Verona, physician-psychiatrist of the EVRMC, examined Anacito in 2000 through three interview sessions lasting one to two hours each. She diagnosed him with schizophrenia, found him psychotic before and during the commission of the crime, and concluded he could not stand trial. However, her one-page medical report lacked supporting medical bases or data, she failed to demonstrate her method of testing, and she was uncertain whether Anacito was conscious of killing his victims in 1998. The trial court found Anacito guilty of murder for the death of Demetrio Jr. and homicide for the death of Allan, rejecting the defense of insanity.

• Insanity Defense: Appellant contended that he was suffering from a psychotic disorder and was therefore completely deprived of intelligence when he stabbed the victims, warranting exemption from criminal liability under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Diminished Willpower: Even assuming criminal liability, appellant argued he was entitled to the mitigating circumstance under paragraph 9, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to illness as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
• Sufficiency of Allegation of Treachery: Appellant maintained that since treachery was not alleged with specificity as a qualifying circumstance in the information, he could not be convicted of murder for the death of Demetrio Jr.

• Failure to Prove Insanity: The OSG countered that Anacito failed to establish with the required proof his defense of insanity or his claim of the mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower, as Dr. Verona's testimony corresponded to the period after the stabbing incidents and she was uncertain that Anacito was unconscious at the time of the killings.
• Treachery Properly Alleged and Proved: The OSG argued that treachery was duly alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution, and should therefore be treated as a qualifying circumstance in the killing of Demetrio Jr.

• Insanity: Whether the defense of insanity was sufficiently established to exempt appellant from criminal liability.
• Diminished Willpower: Whether appellant was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Treachery (Allan Dacles): Whether treachery attended the killing of Allan Dacles.
• Treachery (Demetrio Jr.): Whether treachery was properly alleged and proved to qualify the killing of Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr. as murder.

• Insanity: No. The defense of insanity was not sufficiently established, appellant having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a complete deprivation of intelligence immediately before or at the time of the commission of the crimes.
• Diminished Willpower: No. There was no evidence of a chronic mental disease affecting appellant's intelligence and willpower for years prior to the commission of the crimes, as required by prevailing jurisprudence.
• Treachery (Allan Dacles): No. Treachery could not be appreciated because the sole eyewitness did not see the commencement of the assault, and treachery must be present and seen right at the inception of the attack.
• Treachery (Demetrio Jr.): Yes. Treachery was properly alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution, as appellant lay in wait in a dark place and attacked the unarmed victim without warning, affording no opportunity to resist or defend himself.

• Insanity: The presumption is that every person is sane, and this presumption may only be overthrown by evidence of insanity. He who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it, as the defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance. The proof must relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense. The stringent standard from People vs. Formigones requires complete deprivation of intelligence — that the accused acted without the least discernment because of a complete absence of the power to discern. The evidence presented showed only behavioral oddities — wearing barong tagalog without occasion, occasional silence, laughing, talking to himself, staring sharply, and stabbing within a 15-minute interval — insufficient to prove insanity at the time of the crimes, as such unusual behavior may be considered mere abnormality of the mental faculties which does not exclude imputability. Anacito's psychiatric history showed only out-patient treatment for lack of sleep and noisiness, never confinement or adjudication of insanity; pursuant to People vs. Legaspi, confinement at a mental institution is not by itself proof of insanity absent proof of adjudication. Dr. Verona's evaluation was conducted in 2000, based on only three interview sessions, lacked supporting medical bases, and failed to demonstrate her method of testing; her findings could not establish Anacito's mental condition in 1998, as insanity could have been contracted during detention. The invocation of insanity only in 2000, after first raising alibi and denial, indicated it was an afterthought, as the invocation of denial and alibi indicates the accused was in full control of his mental faculties.

• Diminished Willpower: In cases where this mitigating circumstance was credited after rejecting a plea of insanity, it was clear from the records that the accused had been suffering from a chronic mental disease that affected his intelligence and willpower for quite a number of years prior to the commission of the act. That situation does not exist here. It was only in 2000 that Anacito was diagnosed as psychotic with flight of ideas and auditory hallucinations and found to be schizophrenic. There was nothing on record that he had these symptoms in previous years or at the time he stabbed the victims. Dr. Verona did not even make a diagnosis of schizophrenia in her report, only on the witness stand.

• Treachery (Allan Dacles): For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed. The sole eyewitness, Bambi Herrera, did not see the commencement of the assault on Allan; he only saw Anacito stabbing Allan while the latter appeared to be trying to stand up. The trial court correctly appreciated the killing as homicide rather than murder.

• Treachery (Demetrio Jr.): The information alleged "All contrary to law, and with the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery," which sufficiently qualified the offense. Qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense. Treachery was proved by the prosecution: Anacito was lying in wait for his victim in a dark place at the national highway, and when Demetrio Jr. reached the "lover's lane," Anacito emerged and stabbed him several times. The attack came without warning; it was deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself.

• Presumption of Sanity — Every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. The presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code is that everyone is sane. This presumption may be overthrown by evidence of insanity, but the burden of proof is on the accused who pleads it, as insanity as a defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance. In this case, the presumption was not overcome, Anacito having failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of insanity at the time of the commission of the crimes.

• Test of Cognition for Insanity — The exempting circumstance of insanity requires a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act, i.e., the accused acted without the least discernment because of a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of the will. Philippine case law relies on the test of cognition — whether there was complete deprivation of intelligence — rather than the test of volition — whether there was total deprivation of freedom of the will. No case has turned up where an accused was exempted on the sole ground of total deprivation of freedom of the will without accompanying complete deprivation of intelligence. In this case, the evidence showed only behavioral abnormalities insufficient to meet the stringent standard.

• Timing of Insanity Proof — The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense. An inquiry into the mental state of an accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the precise moment of the commission of the act. Mental condition after that crucial period or during trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining criminal liability. In this case, Dr. Verona's psychiatric evaluation in 2000 could not establish Anacito's mental condition in 1998, as insanity could have been contracted during detention.

• Treachery Requires Visibility of Inception — For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed. Applied here to reject treachery in the killing of Allan Dacles, where the sole eyewitness did not see the commencement of the assault.

• "A man may act crazy, but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so." — This passage encapsulates the stringent standard for the exempting circumstance of insanity, distinguishing mere behavioral abnormality from legal insanity.

• "It must be stressed that an inquiry into the mental state of an accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the precise moment of the commission of the act which is the subject of the inquiry." — States the canonical timing requirement for proof of insanity, emphasizing that post-incident mental condition is inconsequential for determining criminal liability.

• "For treachery to be considered, it must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration with treachery cannot be supposed." — Defines the requirement that treachery must be observed from the commencement of the assault, and is the basis for downgrading the killing of Allan Dacles from murder to homicide.

• "The invocation of denial and alibi as defenses indicates that the accused was in full control of his mental faculties." — Explains why the sequential raising of alibi and denial before insanity undermines the credibility of the insanity defense.

• People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658 (1950) — Controlling precedent establishing the stringent standard for the exempting circumstance of insanity, requiring complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Followed and applied to reject Anacito's defense.

• People vs. Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 65 — Followed for its analysis of the Formigones standard into the test of cognition and the test of volition, and for the observation that Philippine case law relies on the test of cognition.

• People vs. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 234 — Followed for the principle that confinement at the NCMH prior to the incident is not by itself proof of insanity absent proof that the accused was adjudged insane by the institute. Applied to reject Anacito's psychiatric history as proof of insanity.

• People vs. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 144340-42, 6 August 2002, 386 SCRA 391 — Followed for the rule that qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by" to properly qualify an offense. Applied to sustain the murder conviction for the death of Demetrio Jr.

• Article 12(1), Revised Penal Code — Exempts from criminal liability an imbecile or an insane person, unless acting during a lucid interval. Applied as the statutory basis for the defense of insanity, which was rejected for failure to meet the requisite standard of proof.

• Article 13(9), Revised Penal Code — Provides the mitigating circumstance of "illness as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts." The alternative plea for this mitigating circumstance was rejected for absence of evidence of chronic mental disease affecting intelligence and willpower prior to the commission of the crimes.

• Article 800, Civil Code — Presumption that everyone is sane. Relied upon as the legal presumption that the accused must overcome with evidence of insanity.

• Article 2224, Civil Code — Authorizes temperate or moderate damages when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Applied to award temperate damages in lieu of actual damages where receipts were either partially substantiated or not presented.

• Article 2225, Civil Code — Provides that temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. Applied in fixing the amounts of temperate damages awarded to the heirs of both victims.

Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concurred. Panganiban, J., was on official leave.