G.R. No. L-54135 November 21, 1991
Appellant
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. POLICARPIO
RAFANAN JR.
FACTS
Estelita Ronaya was only fourteen years old
when she was hired as a househelp by the mother of
the accused, Ines Rafanan with a salary of P30 a
month. Policarpio Rafanan, then married and fathers
two children, lived with his mother in the same
house. On March 16, 1976, in the evening after
dinner, Estelita Ronaya was sent by the mother of the
accused to help in their store which was located in
front of their house about six (6) meters away. At
around 11 in the evening, the accused called for the
complainant to help him close the door and as
Estelita Ronaya complied, he pulled her inside the
store and forced her to have a sexual intercourse
using a bolo on her neck as a threat if she does not
cooperate. After the rape, Policarpio Rafanan
threatened to kill her if she reports what has
transpired to anyone. Few days later, the victim told
her mother what happened which led to the arrest and
conviction of the appellant of the crime of rape. The
appellant was sentenced of reclusion perpetua and
ordered to pay the victim P10,000 by way of moral
damages to indemnify the complainant, and pay the
costs.
Policarpio Rafanan filed an appeal and
invoked that he was suffering from insanity on the
commission of the crime, specifically, a mental
aberration characterized as schizophrenia. The
appellant was confined in National Mental Hospital
in Mandaluyong for observation and treatment,
temporarily suspending the trial by the trial court.
The appellant was admitted in the hospital on
December 29, 1976 and stayed there until June 26,
1978. During his confinement in the hospital, reports
of his mental assessments were prepared by Dr.
Simplicio N. Masikip and Dr. Arturo E. Nerit,
physician-in-charge and chief of Forensic Psychiatry
Service, respectively. When the appellant was
deemed to be in a much better condition and can
stand trial, the trial was resumed.
Appellant plea of insanity by reason of
schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder
characterized by inability to distinguish between
fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by
hallucinations and delusions. Throughout the trial,
the trial court ruled against Policarpio Rafanan and
was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and P10,000 to
indemnify the victim and costs of suit.
filed an appeal, invoking the insanity defense and
was rejected by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant should be
exempted from criminal liability on the grounds of
insanity
HELD
The court rejected the insanity defense of
the appellant, affirmed the decision of the lower court
convicting the appellant of the crime of rape and
awarded P30,000 to the victim instead of P10,000. It
was held that for the defense of insanity to be
sustained, it is critical that the appellant had complete
loss of intelligence at the time the crime was
committed for the exempting circumstance of
insanity to be found. At the commission of the crime,
the appellant threatened to kill the victim if she tells
anyone about the rape which is indicative of the
appellants awareness of the reprehensible moral
quality of the crime he committed. It is important to
note that the law presumes every man to be sane such
that a person accused of a crime has the burden of
proving his affirmative allegation of insanity which
in this case, the appellant failed to present clear and
convincing evidence regarding his state of mind
immediately before and during the sexual assault on
Estelita.
Additionally, the Court elaborated two
distinguishable tests on the required standards of
legal insanity:
a. The test of cognition: complete deprivation
of intelligence in committing the act
b. The test of volition: there is a total
deprivation on freedom of the will
The appellant, suffering from schizophrenia,
formerly called dementia praecox, is a chronic mental
disorder often characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy and reality, often
accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. In this
case, the appellant is not completely deprived of the
consciousness of his acts and at best can be credited
as mitigating circumstance although Article63 of the
Revised Penal Code states that in cases which the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty (reclusion
perpetua in this case), it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed.