People of The Philippines, Plaintiff Appellee, vs. Alberto Medina Y CATUD, Accused Appellant

10/18/2016
PeoplevsMedina:113691:February6,1998:J.Panganiban:FirstDivision
FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.113691.February6,1998]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ALBERTO MEDINA y

CATUD,accusedappellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
The law presumes that an offender possesses full control of his mental faculties. Thus, the
exemptingcircumstanceofinsanityorimbecilityunderArt.12,par.1oftheRevisedPenalCodemust
beestablishedbyclearandcompetentevidenceshowingthattheaccusedcompletelylosthisreason,
orwasdementedimmediatelypriortoorattheverymomentthecrimewascommitted.
TheCase
ThisisthelegalpreceptrelieduponbythisCourtindenyingthisappealfromtheDecision[1]dated
November17,1993oftheRegionalTrialCourtofBatangasCity,Branch7,inCriminalCaseNo.5787
convictingAlbertoMedinayCatudofmurder.
In an Information dated June 10, 1992, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benito E. Lat
chargedappellantwithmurderallegedlycommittedasfollows:[2]
Thatonoraboutthe20thdayofMay,1992,atabout11:00oclockintheevening,inBarangay
Kaingin,MunicipalityofSanPascual,ProvinceofBatangas,Philippinesandwithinthejurisdictionof
thisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,armedwithabalisongknife,withintenttokill,with
treacheryandevidentpremeditationandwithoutanyjustifiablecause,didthenandtherewilfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandstabwiththesaidbalisongknifeoneAndresM.Dalisay,
suddenlyandwithoutwarning,therebyinflictinguponthelatterstabwoundsonthedifferentpartsof
hisbody,whichdirectlycausedhisdeath.
Contrarytolaw.
Onarraignment,appellant,assistedbyCounselJoseContreras,pleadednotguiltytothecharge.
[3] After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision, the decretal portion of
whichreads:[4]
WHEREFORE,thecourtfindstheaccused,ALBERTOMEDINAyCATUD,guiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofthecrimeofmurderasdefinedandpenalizedbyArticle248oftheRevisedPenal[Code]and
therebeingnomitigatingcircumstancetooffsetthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreacheryandgeneric
aggravatingcircumstanceofevidentpremeditation,andherebysentenceshimtosufferthepenaltyof
reclusionperpetuaandtopaytheheirsofthedeceasedAndresM.DalisaythesumofP50,000.00.
Costsagainstthedeceased.
Hence,thisappeal.[5]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/feb1998/113691.htm
1/10
10/18/2016
TheFacts
VersionoftheProsecution
Theprosecutionsversionofthefacts,asrecountedbythesolicitorgeneralintheappelleesbrief,
isasfollows:[6]
Ataround11pmonMay20,1991,apartywasheldinthehouseofSebastianandDeliaAguilain
BarangayCaingin,Balite,Batangas,tocelebratetheawardingofachampionshiptrophytothe
basketballteamofLarryAndal.AmongthosepresentduringthecelebrationwereAndresDalisay,
EdgardoSilang,LarryAndal,NorbertoBiscocho,BayaniDorado,SalustianoAguilaandappellant
AlbertoMedina(pp.35,tsn,September9,1992,testimonyofLarryAndal).Duringthecelebration,
appellantandDalisaydancedthechachaintheshade(sulambi)neartheterraceofthehouseof
DeliaandSebastianAguila.Whilethetwoweredancing,thegroupwatchedandclappedtheirhands.
Whenthedancewasfinished,appellantleftthehouseoftheAguilas.Afterawhile,Dalisayinvited
Andaltogohome(pp.811,tsn,September11,1992).ThetwoleftthehouseoftheAguilas,with
DalisaywalkingaheadofAndal.Whiletheywerewalking,Andalsawappellant,whowaswaiting
alongtheway,stabDalisaywithabalisongintheabdominalregion.Dalisayheldthehandof
appellant.Whiletheyweregrappling,Dalisaywasabletoextricatehimselfandstartedtorunaway.
Appellantchasedhim.WhenappellantcaughtupwithDalisay,appellantstabbedDalisayoncemore
attheback.Dalisayfelltotheground.Hetriedtogetupandrun,butheagainfelldown.Appellant
stabbedhim[oncemore]onthechest.Then[a]ppellantfledfromthescene.
Andal,whowasaboutonemeteraway,wassostunnedandshockedbywhathesawthathedidnot
doanythingtohelpDalisay.AndalandhisrelativesbroughtDalisaytotheBatangasRegional
Hospital,butDalisaywaspronounceddeadonarrival(pp.26,tsn,Sept.11,1992).
Atthattimeoftheincident,prosecutionwitnessEdgardoSilangwasurinatingtwentypacesaway.He
heardDeliaAguila,thesisterofappellant,shouting,HusaykaAlbertopihadongmakukulongka,
sinaksakmosiAndres.Whenheturnedtowheretheshoutcamefrom,hesawDalisayrunning
towardshim,pursuedbyappellant.HesawbloodinfrontofthebodyofDalisay.Heheldthearmof
DalisayandtriedtohughimbutDalisayfelltotheground.Atthatpoint,hesawappellantflee(pp.5
18,tsn,Sept.9,1992,testimonyofEdgardoSilang).
Dr.BenjaminM.Aguado,theMunicipalHealthOfficerofSanPascualRuralHealthUnit,conducteda
postmortemexaminationofthebodyofthedeceased.HeissuedaPostMortemExaminationReport
(ExhibitC)containingthefollowingfindings:
1.StabWoundbetweenthe3rd&4thinterspaceatthelateralsideofthebodyofthesternum
measuringinchinlengthx2cminwid[th]x3cmindepth.
2.StabWoundattheleftHypochondriacregionmeasuringinchinlengthx2cminwid[th]
exposingtheomentum.
3.StabWoundthighleftjustbelowtheInguinalHerniameasuring1inchinlength3cmin
wid[th]x4cmindepth.
4.StabWoundofthethighleftmidportionanteriorsurfacemeasuring1inchinlengthx3cm
inwid[th]x4cmdepth.
5.StabWoundatthescapularregionmidportionmeasuringinchinlengthx2cminwid[th]x
3cmindepth.
6.StabWoundatthebackleftbetweenthe7thand8thinterspacemeasuringinchinlengthx
2cminwid[th]x3cmindepth.
2/10
10/18/2016
7.StabWoundatlowerportionofthescapularregionleftmeasuringinchinlengthx2cmin
wid[th]x3cmindepth.
8.StabWoundatthebackrightatthelevelofthekidneymeasuringinchinlengthx2
cminwid[th]x4cmindepth.
(ExhibitC).
VersionoftheDefense
Inhisbrief,appellantsetsupinsanityashisdefense.Hisversionofthefactsisasfollows:[7]
1.AccusedappellantAlbertoMedinatestifiedthatontheeveningofMay20,1992,hewenttothe
houseofhissister,DeliaAguila,purposelytowatcht.v.(TSN,September9,1993,p.5).Uponhis
arrival,hesawthegroupofthedeceasedAndresDalisay,LarryAndalandEdgardoSilangwhowere
thenengagedinadrinkingspreeatthebalconyoftheAguilaresidence(Ibid,p.6).
2.Accusedappellantrefusedthegroupsinvitationtojointhemintheirdrinkinghowever,heaccepted
theirinvitationtodancewithAndresDalisay(Ibid.).Infact,accusedappellantdancedwithhimfor
aboutsix(6)orseven(7)times(Ibid,p.7).
3.Asthedanceandthepartyended,theguestsstartedtoleave.Accusedappellantlefthissisters
housetoheadforhishomeatBarangayBalete,whichwasmoreorless200metersaway.Amongthe
personsleftbehindwasAndresDalisay.
4.Whilewalkingalongthepath,accusedappellantheardAndresDalisaysay,Bert,sandalilang,
(TSN,September9,1993,p.10)promptingtheformertostop.
5.Thereupon,AndresDalisay,whoappearedtobedrunk,approachedaccusedappellantanduttered:
Bakitmoakohiniya?andhithim(accusedappellant)onthechest(Ibid).Enraged,accusedappellant
preparedtofightbackwhenAndresDalisaythreatenedtokillhim(Ibid.,p.11).Atthispoint,accused
appellantfurthertestified,itlookedasifAndresDalisaywastakingsomethingout[of]hispocket.
6.Uponseeingthis,accusedappellantbeathimtothedraw,tookouthisbalisongandstabbed
AndresDalisay,whothenlookedlikeadevilwithhorns(Ibid.,p.11and19).ItwasonlywhenAndres
DalisayutteredMaytamaakodidaccusedappellantstopxxxstabbinghisvictim(Ibid.,p.16).
7.Uponrealizingthathehasstabbedaperson,accusedappellantsurrenderedhimselfandthe
weapononthesameeveningtotheauthorities(TSN,September9,1993,p.20).
8.Onseveraloccasionsbefore,specificallyduringthelatterpartof1981,accusedappellanthad
exhibitedunusualbehaviors.HissisterLornaMedinatestifiedthatonJune22,1982,shebroughther
brothertotheNationalMentalHospitalafterthelatterhadshownunusualconduct,suchaslooking
blanklyatadistance,hittinghiswifeorbangingherheadonthewallfornoreasonandhaving
sleeplessnights(TSN,August11,1993,pp.1315).
9.FromJunetoOctoberof1982,accusedappellantwasconfinedattheNationalMentalHospital.
Ms.LourdesPalapal,theRecordsOfficeroftheNationalCenterforMentalHealth(formerly,the
NationalMentalHospital)testifiedonthedocumentsissuedbytheirofficerelativetotheconfinement
ofaccusedappellantforschizophreniformdisorderduringthatperiod(Exhibits3to11).
10.Afterhisreleasefromthehospital,accusedappellantlivedwithhismotherandhistwochildrenat
Brgy.Balete,SanPascual,Batangas.Hisconditiondidnotseemtoimprove,though.LornaMedina
3/10
10/18/2016
furthertestifiedthatinJanuaryof1992,accusedappellantagainexhibitedthesameunusualbehavior
whichshehadobservedfromhimin1982(TSN,August11,1993,p.17).
11.ThispromptedLornatoreferherbrotherscasetoDr.TeresitaAdigue,apsychologistfriendwho
conductedapsychologicalexaminationonaccusedappellant(TSN,August11,1993,p.17).
12.Dr.TeresitaAdigue,aDoctorofPsychologyandaholderofaMastersDegreeinClinicaland
IndustrialPsychologyandanotherMastersDegreeinGuidanceandCounselling,andanaccredited
psychologistofthePhilippineNationalPolicetestifiedthatonJanuary20,1992,sheadministereda
psychologicalevaluationonaccusedappellant(TSN,May24,1993,p.5).
13.Dr.Adiguetestifiedthatbasedontheevaluationofaccusedappellant,thelatterhasbeenshown
tobesufferingfromdepressionandwasexhibitinghomicidaltendencies,andthathedidnotknowthe
differencebetweenrightandwrong(TSN,May24,1993,p.10andTSN,July20,1993,p.16).On
crossexamination,thewitnessaffirmedthatapersonsufferingfromdepressionmaybeinsane(TSN,
July20,1993,p.10).
14.Dr.Adiguestatedthatthepsychologicalevaluationmadeonaccusedappellantwasbasedonthe
behavioralhistoryofthelatterfurnishedtoherbyLornaMedinaandLeticiaRegalado,(TSN,July20,
1993,p.11)acasestudybasedonthefamilybackgroundofaccusedappellant(Ibid.,p.12),andona
seriesofpsychologicaltests(drawapersontest,thecardtestwhereintheemotionsofthesubjectare
representedbythecards,andthethematicperceptiontest)(TSN,May24,1993,p.7).
RulingoftheTrialCourt
Thetrialcourtrejectedtheappellantsdefenseofinsanity.ItruledthatDr.Adiguewasnotproperly
qualified as an expert witness because: (1) she did not have the appellants complete behavioral
history(2)shefailedtodemonstratesatisfactorilyhowshearrivedatherconclusions(3)hermethod
of testing was incomplete and inconclusive (4) her examination lasted for only a few hours without
anyfollowupevaluation(5)theuniversityfromwheresheallegedlyobtainedherdoctoraldegreeis
notknowntospecializeinpsychologyorpsychiatry(6)sheisnotknownasapsychiatristand(7)she
reportedthatthementalactivity[oftheaccusedwas]functioningonthenormallevelatthetimeofthe
evaluation, that he comprehended instructions fast, and that he was suffering only from mild
depression.
The testimony of appellants sister that she had observed unusual behavior on the part of
appellantdidnotconstitutesufficientproofofhisinsanity,becausenoteveryaberrationofthemindor
mental deficiency constitute[s] insanity. That the accused was released from confinement at the
NationalCenterforMentalHealthonOctober4,1982andwasnotreadmittedforanymentaldisorder
for about ten years militated against his alleged lunacy. Additionally, the trial judge observed that,
during the hearings, appellant was attentive, wellbehaved and responsive to the questions
propoundedtohiminEnglishevenwithouttranslation.
Ontheotherhand,appellantsmentalagilitywasshownwhenheadmittedseeingthedeceased
takesomethingoutofhispocket,forwhichreasonhedecidedtobeathimtothedraw(Inunahanko
na). With his balisong, he repeatedly stabbed the deceased. The trial court appreciated treachery
basedonAndalsnarrationofthestabbingincident.
AssignmentofErrors
The defense assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court in convicting
appellant:
4/10
10/18/2016
Thetrialcourtgravelyerredinnotacquittingaccusedappellantormitigatinghiscriminalliabilityon
thegroundofinsanity.
B
Assuming,arguendo,thataccusedappellantiscriminallyliableforthedeathofAndresDalisay,the
trialcourtneverthelesserredinconvictinghimofthecrimeofmurderbyappreciatingtheaggravating
circumstancesoftreacheryandevidentpremeditationdespitedoubttendingtoshowtheexistenceof
suchcircumstances.
C
Assuming,arguendo,thataccusedappellantiscriminallyliable,thetrialcourtlikewiseerredinnot
appreciatingthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrenderinhisfavor.
Inshort,appellantputsinissue(1)hisinsanityand(2)thepresenceandtheeffectofthefollowing
circumstances: (a) treachery, (b) evident premeditation, and (c) voluntary surrender. We shall deal
witheachoftheseissues.
TheCourtsRuling
The appeal is partly meritorious. We reject appellants plea for acquittal but accept his claim of
voluntarysurrender.
FirstIssue:AppellantsInsanityNotProven
AppellantinsiststhatthetrialcourtgravelyerredinrefusingtoconsiderDr.Adigueasanexpert
witness.HearguesthatDr.Adigue,beinganaccreditedpsychologistofthePhilippineNationalPolice
since 1979 and a holder of a doctorate in psychology from the University of Calcutta, India, and a
mastersdegreeinclinicalandindustrialpsychology,deservescredence.
Appellantmissesthepoint.Morethanheracademicqualificationsasapsychologist,whatreally
mattersisthefailureofDr.Adiguestestimonytoestablishlegalinsanityonthepartoftheappellant.
After examining the appellant on January 20, 1992, or four months prior to the incident, and after
conductingtheDrawaPersonTest,theThematicApperceptionTestandtheHandTest,shereported
theresultsofherexaminationasfollows:
VII.TESTRESULTS/EVALUATIONS
Psychologicaltestresultsrevealedthatsubjectsmentalactivityisfunctioningonthenormallevelat
thetimeofevaluation.Hecancomprehendinstructionsfastand[was]neverhesitanttotakethesaid
examinations.
Withregardstosomedominantpersonalityfactors,testresultsrevealedalsothefactthatsubjectis
sufferingonlyfrommilddepressionbecauseofproblemshehadencounteredinlifeandinthings
aroundhim.Hehadalsodevelopednegativereactionsandoutlookinlife,thereforetheundersigned
concludedthathehassomeemotionaldisturbances.
Verily,suchresultsdonotprovetheallegedinsanityoftheappellant.Art.12,par.1oftheRevised
PenalCode,requiresacompletedeprivationofrationalityincommittingtheacti.e.,thattheaccused
5/10
10/18/2016
bedeprivedofreason,thattherebenoconsciousnessofresponsibilityforhisacts,orthattherebe
completeabsenceofthepowertodiscern.[8]Morerelevantly,saidreportdoesnotsupporttheclaim
thatappellantcouldnotdistinguishrightfromwrong.
Thus,thetrialcourtproperlyrejectedappellantsdefenseofinsanity.Thepresumptionoflaw,per
Art.800oftheCivilCode,alwaysliesinfavorofsanity,and,intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,
everypersonispresumedtobeofsoundmind.[9]
Thedefenseofinsanityorimbecilitymustbeclearlyproved,[10]forthereisapresumptionthatacts
penalizedbylawarevoluntary.[11] Hence, in the absence of positive evidence that the accused had
previouslylosthisreasonorwasdementedmomentspriortoorduringtheperpetrationofthecrime,
thecourtswillalwayspresumethathewasinanormalstateofmind.InBascos,[12]theaccusedwas
exemptedfromcriminalliabilitybecausehewasaviolentmaniacasconfirmedbytheactingdistrict
health officer who examined him. In Bonoan,[13] the Court reversed the conviction of the accused,
holdingthatapersonafflictedwithdementiapraecoxandmanicdepressivepsychosishasnocontrol
whateverofhisacts.xxxThereisinthisdisorderapathologiclessening[of]normalinhibitionsandthe
case[in]whichimpulsesmayleadtoactionsimpairsdeliberationsandtheuseofnormalchecksto
motorimpulses(Peterson,HainesandWebster,LegalMedicineandToxicology[2ded.,1926],vol.I,
p. 617). There, the accused was treated at the psychiatric department of San Lazaro Hospital and
was released long before the commission of the crime, but the reports of the alienists[14] who
examined the accused after the crime confirmed his mental disorders. The Court held that the
evidencethattheaccusedappearedlucidwhenhestabbedthevictimdidnotnecessarilyprovehis
sanity, because it was clear from what Dr. Sydney Smith, Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine,
UniversityofEdinburgh,saidinhisworkonForensicMedicine,(3d.ed.[London],p.382),thatinthe
typeofdementiapraecox,thecrimeisusuallyprecededbymuchcomplainingandplanning.Inthese
people, homicidal attacks are common, because of delusions that they are being interfered with
sexuallyorthattheirpropertyisbeingtaken.[15]
However,caremustbetakentodistinguishbetweenlackofreason(insanity)andfailuretouse
reasonorgoodjudgmentduetoextremeanger(passion).xxx[I]tisnowwellsettledthatmeremental
depravity, or moral insanity, so called, which results, not from any disease of mind, but from a
perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one
fromresponsibilityforcrimescommittedunderitsinfluence.[16]
Thus,beforethedefenseofinsanitymaybeacceptedasanexemptingcircumstance,Philippine
caselawshowsacommonrelianceonthetestofcognition,whichrequiresacompletedeprivationof
intelligencenotonlyofthewillincommittingthecriminalact.[17]InthecitedcaseofRafanan,the
factthatappellantthreatenedthevictimwithdeathincaseshereportedherravishmentindicatedthat
he was aware of the reprehensible moral depravity of that assault and that he was not deprived of
intelligence.InDungo,thattheaccusedknewthenatureofwhathehaddonenegatedhisclaimthat
hewasinsanewhenhefatallystabbedhisvictim.[18]InAquino[19],appellant,whotook120ccofcough
syrup and consumed three sticks of marijuana before raping his victim and hitting her head with a
stone,hadsomeformofmentalillnesswhichdidnottotallydeprivehimofintelligence.Thepresence
ofhisreasoningfaculties,enablinghimtoexercisesoundjudgmentandtosatisfactorilyarticulatethe
aforesaidmatters,sufficientlydiscountedanyintimationofinsanitywhenhecommittedthefelony. It
hasbeenheldthatmereabnormalityofthementalfacultiesdoesnotexcludecriminalculpability.
In the present case, Dr. Adigues testimony did not establish complete deprivation of appellants
reason.Consequently,appellantcannotclaimexemptionfromcriminalliabilityunderArt.12,par.1of
theRevisedPenalCode.
Alternatively,appellantarguesthathisconditionshouldmerit,attheveryleast,theappreciationof
a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13, par. 9 of the Code.[20] In Formigones, the Court found the
feeblemindednessoftheaccusedtobeamitigatingcircumstance,notingthathisfacultieswerenot
fullydeveloped.Afterstabbinghiswife,theaccusedinsaidcasetookherdeadbodyuptheirhouse,
putheronthefloorandlaybesideherforhours,showingremorseathavingkilledher.Theaccused
6/10
10/18/2016
was suffering [from] some physical defect which thus restrict[ed] his means of action, defense or
communicationwithhisfellowbeings,orsuchillnessaswoulddiminishtheexerciseofhiswillpower.
[21] In Rafanan, schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting because it does not completely
deprivetheoffenderoftheconsciousnessofhisacts,wasconsideredamitigatingcircumstancewhich
diminished the exercise of the offenders will power without, however, depriving him of the
consciousnessofhisacts.[22]
In the instant case, however, the defense miserably failed to establish the deprivation of the
appellantswillwhenhestabbedhisvictim.Appellanttestifiedthathethoughtthevictimwasgoingto
pulloutaweapon,thushebeathimtothedrawandstabbedhimwithhisbalisong.[23]Thisstatement
showsthathedidnotsufferanydeprivationofreasonordiscernment.Whilethevictimappearedto
himasadevilwithhorns,suchperceptualdistortionoccurredonlyafterhehaddealtthefatalblows
onthevictim.TheCourtcannot,therefore,appreciatethismitigatingcircumstanceinhisfavor.
SecondIssue:ProofofTreachery
The treacherous nature of appellants attack on the victim was established by Andal who
witnessedtheincident.Testifiedthewitness:[24]
FISCALCARAAN:
QWhataboutyou,where[were]youonthatoccasion?
AIwaswithAndresingoinghomesir.
QCanyoutellthecourt[ifyouwere]walkingtogetheratthattime?
AYessir.
QWhowasahead?
AAndreswasaheadofme,sir.
QAndyou[were]following?
AYes,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
QWhilewalkingtogether,canyoutellthecourtwhatactuallyhappened?
AAlbertowaitedforusonthewaythatweregoingpass,sir.
QWhydoyousaythatAlberto[was]waitingforyouandAndresduringthattime?
APerhapshehasabadintentioned,(sic)sir.
QWhilewalkingonthatpathAndreswasaheadofyouwhatdidyouseeifyouhadsee[n]anything?
AAlbertostabbedAndresDalisay,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
QWhathappen[ed]afterAlbertohad[stabbed]AndresDalisay?
ATheychasedoneanother,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
QWhathappen[ed]afterthat?
AWhenthefirststubbed(sic)hitDalisay,DalisaytriedtoholdthehandofAlbertoandwhentheywere
strugglingAndreswasabletopushAlbertoandtheybothfelldownandwithAlbertoontopofAndres,
AndreswasabletopushAlbertoandhewasabletogetupandAndresranawayandAlbertochasedhim
sir.
7/10
10/18/2016
FISCALCARAAN:
QDidAlberto[catch]upwithAndresxxx?
AYessir,AndresDalisaytoppleddownandAlbertostabbedhimattheback,sir.
QWhathappen[ed]next?
AAfterthestabbingofAndresatthebackbyAlberto,Andreswasabletogetupandranandwhilerunninghe
fellforthesecondtimeandAlbertostabbed[him]againonthechest,sir.
Treacherycanbegleanedfromthefactthatappellantwaitedbehindachicotreeandthen,allofa
sudden, jumped on the victim. Appellants attack was not only sudden and unexpected it was also
vicious and relentless. After delivering the first stab, appellant chased his victim and stabbed him
sevenmoretimes.These seven additional stabs were inflicted when the victim was helpless, as he
fell down several times during the pursuit. Counterattack and escape proved futile because of the
injuriesthatthevictimsustained.Themedicolegalofficerreportedthatoftheeightstabwoundson
thevictim,sixwerefatal.[25]Clearly,inkillinghisvictim,appellantemployedmeanswhichensuredits
executionwithoutrisktohimselfarisingfromanydefensewhichthevictimmightmake.[26]Treachery
whichqualifiedthekillingasmurderwasproperlyappreciatedbythetrialcourt.
ThirdIssue:AbsenceofEvidentPremeditation
TheCourtconcurswithappellantandthesolicitorgeneralthatthetrialcourterredinappreciating
evidentpremeditation.Thesolicitorgeneralexplainsthatonlyafewminuteshadpassedfromthetime
appellantlefthissistershousetothetimehestabbedhisvictim.Thus, no sufficient lapse of time is
appreciablefromthedeterminationtocommitthecrimeuntilitsexecutiontoallowappellanttoreflect
upon the consequences of his act.[27] Under such circumstances, evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated.
FourthIssue:VoluntarySurrender
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been credited in favor of the
appellant.[28]Thesolicitorgeneralconcursandnotesthatappellant,afterhavingearliergivenhimself
up to a certain Col. Faltado, surrendered at midnight on May 20, 1992, or about an hour after the
stabbing incident, to Wilfredo Sevillano, former desk officer of the Batangas City Police Station.[29]
Hence, the evidence sufficiently established the elements of voluntary surrender, namely: (1) the
offender has not been actually arrested (2) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or an
agentofapersoninauthorityand(3)hissurrenderwasvoluntary.[30]
TheProperPenalty
Voluntary surrender diminishes appellants penalty. Since the crime was committed prior to the
effectivityofRepublicAct7659,theimposablepenaltyformurderisreclusintemporalinitsmaximum
period to death. The proscription of the death penalty by the 1987 Constitution did not amend the
imposablepenaltyundersaidarticle.[31]Thus,Art.64,whichprovidestherulesfortheapplicationof
penalties containing three periods, governs the determination of the proper penalty in this particular
case.[32]Contrarytothecontentionofthesolicitorgeneral,Art.63oftheRevisedPenalCodedoesnot
apply.[33]
Following Art. 64 (2) of the Code, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender entitles
appellant to the imposition of reclusin temporal in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate
8/10
10/18/2016
Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended), appellant should be sentenced to an indeterminate
sentenceofprisionmayorinitsmaximumperiod,asminimum,andreclusiontemporalinitsmaximum
period,asmaximum.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is
IMPOSED an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prisin mayor maximum, as
minimum, and seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusin temporal maximum, as
maximum.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,(Chairman),Bellosillo,Vitug,andQuisumbing,JJ.,concur.
[1]PennedbyJudgeArtemioS.TiponRollo,pp.2124.
[2]Records,p.1.
[3]Ibid.,p.77.
[4]Rollo,p.24.
[5]ThecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononJuly10,1996whentheCourtnotedreceiptoftheappelleesbrief.
FilingofappellantsReplyBriefwasdeemedwaived.
[6]Rollo,pp.140144.The25pageappelleesbriefwassignedbySolicitorGeneralRaulI.Goco,AssistantSolicitorGeneral
RomeoC.delaCruzandAssociateSolicitorRoselynO.Balanquit.
[7]Rollo,pp.6773.Appellants42pagebriefwaspreparedbyCounseldeOficioConstantinoB.deJesus.
[8]Peoplevs.Formigones,87Phil.658,660663,November29,1950Peoplevs.Rafanan,Jr.,204SCRA65,74,
November21,1991Peoplevs.Dungo,199SCRA860,866,July31,1991andPeoplevs.Puno,105SCRA151,158159,
June29,1981.
[9]Peoplevs.Rafanan,supra,p.79Peoplevs.Morales,121SCRA426,436,April20,1983andPeoplevs.Aquino,186
SCRA851,858,June27,1990.
[10]Peoplevs.Bonoan,64Phil.87[1937],perLaurel,J.
[11]Peoplevs.Formigones,supra,p.661andPeoplevs.Aquino,supra,p.861.
[12]Peoplevs.Bascos,44Phil.204,206207[1922].
[13]Supra.
[14]WebstersThirdNewInternationalDictionarydefinesanalienistasonewhotreatsthediseasesofthemind,aphysician
whospecializesinpsychiatry.
[15]Peoplevs.Bonoan,supra,p.99.Emphasesfoundintheoriginal.
[16]UnitedStatesvs.Vaquilar,27Phil.88,92,March13,1914,perTrent,J.
[17]Peoplevs.Rafanan,supraPeoplevs.Dungo,supra,p.871.
[18]Supra.
[19]Peoplevs.Aquino,supra,p.862863.
[20]Art.13.Mitigatingcircumstances.Thefollowingaremitigatingcircumstances:
xxxxxxxxx
9.Suchillnessoftheoffenderaswoulddiminishtheexerciseofthewillpoweroftheoffenderwithouthoweverdepriving
himofconsciousnessofhisacts.
xxxxxxxxx
[21]Supra.
9/10
10/18/2016
[22]Supra,p.80
[23]TSN,September9,1993,p.11.
[24]TSN,September11,1992,pp.35.
[25]TSN,November24,1992,p.6.
[26]Peoplevs.Marolano,G.R.No.105004,July24,1997,p.37Peoplevs.Sol,G.R.No.118504,May7,1997,pp.1213
andPeoplevs.Serzo,G.R.No.118435,June20,1997,pp.2022.
[27]Theelementsofevidentpremeditationare:(1)theaccuseddeterminedtocommitthecrime,(2)anactmanifestly
indicatingthatheclungtohisdetermination,and(3)asufficientlapseoftimebetweensuchdeterminationandexecutionto
allowhimtoreflectupontheconsequencesofhisact.Peoplevs.Estrellanes,239SCRA235,250,December15,1994
Peoplevs.Layno,G.R.No.110833,November21,1996,pp.2021Peoplevs.Deopante,G.R.No.102772,October30,
1996,pp.89Peoplevs.Sol,supra,pp.1415andPeoplevs.Nell,G.R.109660,July1,1997,pp.1617.
[28]Peoplevs.Rivero,242SCRA354.
[29]TSN,December11,1992,pp.34.
[30]Peoplevs.Isleta,G.R.No.114971,November19,1996,p.19andPeoplevs.Castillo,261SCRA493,503,
September6,1996.
[31]Peoplevs.Muoz,170SCRA107,122124,Feb.9,1989.
[32]Peoplevs.Sol,supra,pp.1618.
[33]AppelleesBrief,pp.2324Rollo,pp.160161.ThesolicitorgeneralmisinterpretedPeoplevs.Buenaflor(211SCRA492,
501,July15,1992),whichappliedtherulesfortheapplicationofindivisiblepenaltiesinArticle63,becausesaidcasedealt
withrapewhichwaspunishablewithreclusinperpetua,asingleindivisiblepenalty.
10/10

People of The Philippines, Plaintiff Appellee, vs. Alberto Medina Y CATUD, Accused Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines, Plaintiff Appellee, vs. Alberto Medina Y CATUD, Accused Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/18/2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ALBERTO MEDINA y

You might also like