Every human is presumed sane (Article 800 Civil Code). So anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code has the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence. He/she has the burden of proving insanity because he/she already admits to have committed the crime but still denies guilt due to insanity. This rule is illustrated in this case of Tino.
Since 1994, Tino had been living-in with his common law wife Naty at the third floor of a rented house where his parents and siblings also lived. Tino and Naty had two children, 3-year old Kit and 2-year old Ron. Financial difficulties drove Naty to work in Hong Kong as domestic helper, leaving behind their kids under the care and custody of Tino. Sometime later Tino heard from his sister who was also working in HK that Naty was having an affair with another man. Since then Tino had been drinking and maltreating Kit and Ron.
On December 12, 1998 at around 11:30 p.m. when Tino’s mother and two sisters went to his room, they were shocked to see Kit and Ron lying on the floor with stab wounds on their body appearing to be lifeless already. When Tino realized the presence of his mother and siblings, he stabbed himself on the chest with a kitchen knife and then tried to end his life by jumping out of the window in the presence of his horrified mother and sisters. Tino sustained head injury and was brought to the hospital together with his sons. He survived but his sons could not be revived anymore.
When told about the incident, Naty immediately flew back to Manila the next day and confronted Tino at the hospital. Tino confessed to stabbing his children and begged for her forgiveness. Subsequently, the police investigator also interviewed Tino after informing him of his constitutional rights. Tino confided to the investigator that he was despondent and voluntarily admitted that he stabbed his sons. One of his sisters also told the police that Tino was responsible for the killings.
When charged with double parricide, Tino pleaded not guilty and raised insanity as a defense. He said he could not recall what happened on the night he supposedly stabbed his sons and could not remember being taken to the hospital. He testified that he was only informed by his sisters that he had killed them, causing him to jump off the window of their home. Aside from his testimony, Tino presented his medical record at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) showing an unstable mind deprived of intelligence. Coupled with his strange behavior and lack of recollection of the stabbing incident, he said that the killing of his children was thus involuntary.
But the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found Tino guilty of two counts of parricide and sentenced him to death on each count. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA with the modification as to penalty which was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Were the RTC and CA correct?
Yes. The NCMH records about Tino’s mental condition only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crime. He acted out of jealous rage at the thought of his wife having an affair. But uncontrolled jealously and anger or being despondent are not equivalent to insanity. There is a vast difference between a genuinely insane person and one who has worked himself up into such frenzy that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he does. Only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered. The professed inability of the accused to recall events before and after the stabbing incident does not necessarily indicate an aberrant mind but is more indicative of a concocted excuse to exculpate himself. It is simply too convenient for Tino to claim that he cannot remember anything rather than face the consequences of his terrible deed.
Hence the requirements for a finding of insanity have not been met by Tino. The presumption of sanity has not been overcome. Tino voluntarily killed his children on the night of December 12, 1998. The commission of parricide is punished more severely than homicide since human beings are expected to love and support those closest to them. The extreme response of killing one’s own flesh and blood is indeed unnatural and tragic. Tino must thus be handed down the harshest penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crimes against his innocent children (People vs. Tibon, G.R. 188320, June 29, 2010).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net