SC affirms death sentence on man claiming insanity as defense

The Supreme Court has affirmed the death penalty on a man convicted of murder as it refused to consider his defense that he was a schizophrenic and homicidal maniac and was, thus, unaware of the crime he committed.

Randy Belonio was earlier meted capital punishment by Judge Roberto Chiongson of the regional trial court of Negros Occidental for killing Ramy Tamayo without any clear reason on Jan. 6, 2000. The SC also ordered Belonio to pay the Tamayo’s heirs P1.4 million in damages.

In its decision, the court found Belonio’s evidence solely insufficient to establish his state of insanity at the time he stabbed the Tamayo.

The SC agreed with the ruling of Chiongson on Feb. 26, 2001 that Belonio had full control of his mental faculties based on the testimony of expert witness, Dr. Ester Regina Servando.

The court cited the opinion of Servando as more credible than that of another expert witness, Dr. Antonio Gauzon, who found that Belonio was totally capable of being manipulative or evasive.

The Court found Gauzon’s conclusion — that Belonio’s schizophrenic condition was demonstrated by the fact that he had already killed three persons, including Tamayo - as a non sequitur (an unrelated argument) and, at best, a circuitous argument.

It also junked the argument of Belonio that the RTC took notice of his being a homicidal maniac and this should be considered as acknowledgment of his illness. Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance and as such must be adequately proved, the SC said.

The defense of insanity is an exempting circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.

The court said Belonio must have shown he was suffering from insanity immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime.

In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing a criminal act.

Proof of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability, if it can be shown that the offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence, the SC said.

Witnesses testified that Belonio deliberately bumped into Tamayo, who only went to buy cigarettes at a store. Accroding to the witnesses, Belonio gave Tamayo a hard and resentful look, sat beside him and even conversed with him, then suddenly stabbed the Tamayo with an improvised knife.

The court held that Belonio was well aware of the crime he had just committed and was capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

It pointed out that aside from the bumping incident, the only other evidence of insanity that the appellant could relevantly present was the medical certificate prepared by Gauzon stating Belonio was suffering from schizophrenia.

But the report did not discuss incidents prior to or during the commission of crime for which Belonio stood trial, the SC added.

Belonio’s crime was aggravated by treachery and recividism. Treachery involves a deliberate employment of means to ensure the killing without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial, for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

Records show Belonio was previously convicted of homicide, which, like murder falls under the title of Crimes Against Persons.