Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

1. People v.

Dungo

Facts:
March 24, 1987 Rosalino Dungo was charged with murder
March 16, 1987 Rosalino stabbed Mrs. Belen Sigua with a knife hitting her at her chest,
stomach, throat, and other parts of the body creating 14 wounds wherein 5 of them
were fatal.
On the arraignment he pleaded not guilty. Several witnesses said: around 2-3PM a male
person (Rosalino) went to the office of Belen in the Department of Agrarian Reform.
After a brief talk, he stabbed her (knife coming from an envelope he brought)
Rodolfo Sigua (Belens husband) said: Rosalino came to him around end of February
1987 concerning his wife asking why so many documents are required. He explained it is
the procedure of DAR. Rosalino replied saying never mind, I could do it on my own
way.
Andrea Dungo said: 2 weeks before March 16, 1987 she noticed her husband
o In deep thought always
o Maltreating their children (he did not do before)
o Demanding payment from costumers when they have already paid
o Chasing any child when their children quarreled with other children
o At noon time, complained of stomach ache but said later it went away
Andreas testimony corroborated with neighbor Thelma Santos cause she would hear
their quarrels
To barangay official Rosalino said here is my wallet, you surrender me. The same day
he went to Manila
Dra. Santiago and Dr Alvarez, National Center for Mental Health, testified accused was
confined per trial court order. Doctors concluded that Rosalino was psychotic and
insane before, during, and after commission of the crime. With condition of Stroke
Dr Balatbat treated him for ailments secondary to stroke
Dr. Lim said he suffered from occlusive disease of the brain resulting in left side
weakness
Dr. Bascara testified Rosalino was at a low level of intelligence after treating him
Trial Court convinced that he was sane because of act of concealing the weapon after
and that he left for manila to evade arrest.
Dr. Echavez Rosalino had a stroke abroad. First manifestation of behavioral changes is
January 1987

Issue: Was Rosalino insane during the time he committed the crime?

Ruling:
No. Court ruled he is sane. Reasons:
Carrying fatal weapon and then concealing
Going to manila to evade arrest
Rosalino has not successfully discharged the burden of overcoming the
presumption that he committed the crime as charged freely, knowingly, and
intelligently.
He did not satisfy the requirements for insanity.



2. People v. Rafanan

Facts:
Estelita Ronaya was only 14 years old when the mother of Policarpio Rafanan hired her
as a househelper. Policarpio and his family lived in the same house as his mother. Policarpio
was married with children children. One evening, the mother of Policarpio called Estelita to
help him close the door. When the Estelita went near him, he pulled her inside the store and
raped her despite her resistance. After that, he warned her not to tell anyone about it or he will
kill her. The next day, the family of the Policarpio knew what happened.

Policarpio claimed that he suffers schizophrenia when he inflicted violent intentions to
Estelita. Trial court suspended the trial and ordered his confinement to National Mental
Hospital in Mandaluyong. After 2 years, he was reported to have behaved and in an improved
and mental condition to stand court in trial.

Issue: Should Policarpio be exempted from criminal liability on the grounds of insanity from
schizophrenia?

Ruling:
No. The court affirmed trial court decision to convict Policarpio.
For the defense of insanity to be sustained it is critical that there is complete loss of
intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime. The fact that Policarpio threatened
Estelita with death should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him, indicates to the
mind of the Court that he was aware of the reprehensible moral quality of his assault.
The law presumes every man to be sane. A person accused of a crime has the burden of
proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. In the case he failed to present clear and
convincing evidence regarding his state of mind immediately before and during the sexual
assault on the victim.









3. People v. Tabugoc

Facts:
This is an automatic review on 2 rape cases against Cresencio Tabugoca for raping his
daughter Jacqueline (14 years old) on March 28, 1992, and Jinky (12 years old) on December 9,
1994.

Jacqueline was raped on the night of the above date. She was asked by her father to
scratch her back and he then asked her to stay. He removed her shorts and underwear and told
her to lie next to him. All she could do was cry and after that she just kept to herself what had
happened of not her father will harm her. She was 12 y.o. and 3 mos. when it happened. Legal
findings were that she was forcibly abused.

Jinky was raped on the morning of the date mentioned above while she was cleaning at
their home. He approached her and took off his clothes, he ordered her daughter to lie down
and he removed her shorts and panty. He inserted his penis after. She cried and complained
that it hurt so he stopped, telling her that it is ordinary to feel the pain when its the first time
of coitus. She was 12 y.o. and 9 mos. Legal findings said that there was no full penetration
although attempts were done.

On the same day of Jinkys rape, they were at their grandmothers home when Jinky
started to open up about their father sexually abusing her, Jacqueline then told her
grandmother what happened to her 2 years prior. Perlita Alejandro (grandmother) took hem to
the police and then Municipal health officer.

Cresencio appealed his intoxication as an exempting circumstance stating that he did
not remember anything during the time of the two rape incidents because he was very drunk.
He added that he would only take alcohol when he would remember his late wife, and had only
started drinking after she had died in August 28, 1991.


Issue: Is there an exempting circumstance of insanity?

Ruling:
No, the Court did not consider being drunk as insanity during the time of the
commission of the crime as an exempting circumstance, but rather a mitigating circumstance.








4. People v. Formigones

Facts:
Appeal from CFI of Abelardo Formigones finding him guilty of parricide sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua
November 1946, Abelardo, Julia and their 5 children moved to the house of his half
brother Zacarias Formegones (who lived with his grandmother, but when they moved
he slept often at his house)
December 28, 1946, Abelardo stabbed Julia with a bolo hanged on the wall while she
was sitting in the head of the stairs. She fell down, he then picked her up and lay her
down in the living room where he lay beside her
Irene Formigones his eldest daughter witnessed and testified everything. She shouted
for help and some people arrived
Investigated by Constabulary he admitted killing his wife with motive of jealousy
(often had quarrels and she was always with Zacarias)
Preliminary investigation pleaded guilty
Trial court pleaded not guilty, but did not testify.
Testimony of 2 guards from the jail acted strange and behaved like an insane person
o Remove his clothes and go stark naked
o Silent and indifferent to surroundings at times
o Refused to take a bath until forced by authorities
o Sing in chorus or alone without being asked
o Cell door was open and he darted to prison compound in attempt to regain
freedom
Appeal that he is imbecile. But Court and trial court rejected the appeal
Dr. Francisco Gomez Feeblemindedness because he can distinguish right from wrong

Issue: Is there and exempting circumstance? Is he an imbecile?

Ruling:
There is no exempting circumstance and he is not an imbecile. To be an imbecile, there
has to be complete absence of intelligence, reason, and no responsibility of acts. The strange
behavior attributed feeblemindedness, eccentric, or morbid mental conditions produced from
remorse at having been killed his wife. Careful study of record and history of marriage led to
convince court he is not imbecile. He is guilty of parricide with the modification that he will be
credited with one-half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone. Chief executive may
reduce penalty or apply executive clemency as he sees fit.