Professional Documents
Culture Documents
started attacking Vicente with a long and found that the latter was evident
bolo (panabas) without any reason. od psychotic symptoms. However,
While Vicente was able to escape he could not tell with certainty
Umawid's blows, the latter whether Umawid was psychotic at
nevertheless hit Maureen on her the time of the commission of the
abdomen and back, causing her crimes. On the other hand, Dr.
instant death. Upon seeing Maureen Juliana failed to testify on Umawid's
bloodied, Umawid walked away. mental stare since she merely
referred the latter to another doctor
Thereafter, Umawid went to a nearby for further evaluation.
house which was only five meters
away from Vicente's house where his Issue:
nephew, Jeffrey Mercado, was Whether or not the accused is
sleeping. Awaken by the sudden exempted from criminal liablity due to
noise, Jeffrey went outside only to insanity?
see his uncle rushing to attack him
with his panabas. Ruling:
No. Under Article 12 of the RPC:
Jeffrey, along with his sister and
cousin, rushed inside the house to Article 12. Circumstances which
seek for safety. However, Umawid exempt from criminal liabity - The
was able to prevent Jeffrey from following are exempt from criminal
closing the door and the former liability:
barge into the house. Jeffrey 1. An imbecile or an insane person,
crouched and covered his head with unless the latter has acted during a
his arms to shield him from lucid interval.
Umawid's impending attacks.
The defense of insanity is in the
Umawid delivered fatal hacking nature of confession and avoidance
blows to Jeffrey, causing the because an accused invoking the
mutilation of the latter's fingers. same admits to have committed the
Umawid only stopped upon seing crime but claims that he or she is not
Jeffrey, who was then pretending to guilty because of insanity. The
be dead, leaning on the wall and presumption is in favor of sanity,
blood-stained. anyone who pleads the said defense
bears the burden of proving it with
In court, Umawid set up the defense clear and convincing evidence.
of insanity, but did not, however, take Considering the case, the evidence
the witness stand to attest the same. must relate to the time immediately
Instead, he presented the before or during the commission of
testimonies of Dr. Arthur M. Quincina the offense/s with which one is
and Dr. Leonor Andres Juliana to charged. Also, to support the
support his claim. Dr. Quincina defense of insanity, it must be shown
testifies that he evaluated Umawid's that the accused had no full and
psychiatric condition in May 2002, clear understanding of the nature
February 2003, and on March 2003 and consequences of his or her acts.
1986 and filed the motion for nature of the proceedings to recover
execution against the bond on July 3, damages against a surety, in this
1986. Hence, with respect to the wise: · In such case, upon
defendant the motion against the application of the prevailing party,
bond was filed before any appeal the court must order the surety to
was instituted and definitely on or show cause why the bond should not
before the judgment became final. · respond for the judgment of
Although the claim against the bond damages. If the surety should
was denominated as a motion for contest the reality or reasonableness
issuance of a writ of execution, the of the damages claimed by the
allegations are to the effect that the prevailing party, the court must set
defendant is applying for damages the application and answer for
against the bond. In fact, the hearing. The hearing will be
defendant invokes Sec. 10, Rule 60, summary and will be limited to such
in relation to Sec. 20, Rule 57, Rules new defense, not previously set up
of Court. Evidently, therefore, the by the principal, as the surety may
defendant is in reality claiming allege and offer to prove. ·
damages against the bond. · It is Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc.,
undisputed that the replevin bond never denied that it issued a replevin
was obtained by the plaintiff to bond. Under the terms of the said
answer for whatever damages the bond, Stronghold Insurance together
defendant may suffer for the with Leisure Club Inc. solidarily
wrongful issuance of the writ. By bound themselves in the sum of
virtue of the writ, the plaintiff took P42,000 â · (a) for the
possession of the auctioned prosecution of the action, · (b) for
properties. Despite a redelivery bond the return of the property to the
issued by the defendant, the plaintiff defendant if the return thereof be
refused to return the properties and adjudged, and · (c) for the payment
in the fact repossessed the same. of such sum as may in the cause be
Clearly, defendant suffered damages recovered against the plaintiff and
by reason of the wrongful replevin, in the costs of the action. · In the case
that it has been deprived of the at bar, all the necessary conditions
properties upon which it was entitled for proceeding against the bond are
to enforce its claim. Moreover, the present, to wit: · (i) the plaintiff a
extent of the damages has been quo, in bad faith, failed to prosecute
qualified in the decision dated June the action, and after relieving the
9, 1986. · CA affirmed the Order. property, it promptly disappeared; ·
Hence, this petition. (ii) the subject property disappeared
with the plaintiff, despite a court
ISSUE: WON Northern Motors is order for their return; and · (iii) a
entitled for damages against the reasonable sum was adjudged to be
surety due to respondent, by way of actual
and exemplary damages, attorney's
HELD : In the case of Visayan fees and costs of suit. · On the
Surety & Insurance Corp. vs. propriety of the award for damages
Pascual, the Court explained the and attorney's fees, suffice it to state,