THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

LORETO RENEGADO
G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974

FACTS:

The accused-appellant, Loreto Renegado, after voluntary surrender, was found guilty
of “murder with assault upon a person in authority” before the City Fiscal of Calbayog
City in the conduct of the trial. The same case is then brought to the Supreme Court
for automatic review.

The deceased, Mamerto de Lira, was a Mathematics class teacher of the Tiburcio
Tancinco Memorial Vocational School, which is run by the national government in
Calbayog City. Renegado was a clerk in the same institution. Lira requested
Renegado to type the stencil of his test questions on one afternoon, but the latter
refused. After, Lira made a reminder and a remark on Renegado that made the latter
angry. With sustained anger, Renegado displayed negative attitude and statements
to five of his co-employees that he would kill a person. They pacified him and reminded
him of the consequences of such motive. Three days after, Lira, with his back towards
Renegado, was stabbed unwarned with a knife by the latter. Lira died in the hospital
six days after the incident.

The appellant submitted his own testimony of the incident: that he had lost his senses
for a few moments at the precise time of stabbing Lira, in which the accused-appellant
was not aware of. His testimony was further supported by the raised evidence that he
was earlier clubbed on the forehead, producing ill-effects in his mental condition. For
such reasons, the counsel of the appellant pleaded for an acquittal with the argument
that accused should be exempt from criminal liability on the ground of insanity.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused be exempt from criminal liability on the ground of
insanity.

2. Whether or not the court a quo erred in holding the appellant guilty of "murder with
assault upon a person in authority."

RULING:

1. No, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Palma, declared that insanity
exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing act, that
is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment
because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a
total deprivation of freedom of the will; yet, considering mere abnormality of the
mental faculties will not exclude imputability. It was found that the accused is a
perfectly normal being with, thus, normal mental condition, in spite of his
passionate nature of being easily provoked to violence for no valid reason at all,
and because of the absence of proof on his insanity and absence of will in order
to relieve him from responsibility on the ground of exceptional mental condition.
For these reasons, Renegado is not exempted from criminal liability.
2. No, the killing of Mamerto de Lira is qualified by evident premeditation for the
reason that even being given the sufficient time to ponder over his plan and listen
to the advice of his co-employees and of his own conscience, Renegado persisted
in his plan and carried it into effect. True in the Article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code, the aggravating circumstance of treachery was also an element in the case,
for Lira, who was unarmed, was never in a position to defend himself or offer
resistance, nor to present risk or danger to the accused when assaulted. Such
aggravator would offset the mitigating act of voluntary surrender (Art. 13 of the
Revised Penal Code) done by the accused. Then, the killing of Lira is complexed
with assault upon a person in authority. It is mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 578 that “a teacher either of
a public or of a duly recognized private school is a person in authority.” Thus, the
court a quo did not err in holding the appellant guilty of "murder with assault upon
a person in authority." Furthermore, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice
Palma, declared that the charge of “guilty” held by the court a quo to the accused
be affirmed and sustained.