THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. REMIGIO CRUZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Cruz

The Case

This is People versus Cruz, a criminal appeal decided in August 1960. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Remigio Cruz for killing his wife, Natividad Concepcion, and for hacking her sister, Anita Concepcion. The trial court convicted him of parricide and frustrated murder, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it is the classic statement on two recurring bar topics: how the fact of marriage may be proved in parricide, and how insanity must be established to exempt an accused from criminal liability.

Procedural History

The accused was indicted in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija under two separate informations, one for parricide and one for frustrated murder. After trial, the court convicted him on both charges. For parricide, it imposed reclusion perpetua. For frustrated murder, it imposed an indeterminate penalty of from two years, four months and one day of prision correccional to eight years of prision mayor, with the accessories of the law. It also ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Natividad Concepcion in the amount of six thousand pesos and Anita Concepcion in the amount of two thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in August 1960.

Facts

The appellant married Natividad Concepcion in March 1953, and a daughter was born to them the following year. Their life together was troubled. Natividad separated from him in 1954, allegedly because he used to beat her, and again in 1955, when she stayed with her parents in Cabanatuan City. Each time, he persuaded her to return to him.

In the first week of June 1956, the appellant brought his wife and their sick daughter to his parents' home in Santa Rita, Pampanga. He looked dirty, his eyes were sunken, and he complained of headaches. He fetched a physician, a boyhood friend named Doctor Lising, to treat his daughter. When he returned with the doctor, he found that his wife and daughter had already left for Cabanatuan City. He was so enraged that he slashed a jar of sugar with a bolo.

On June 9, 1956, he followed his family to Cabanatuan City and tried to convince his wife to return with him to Manila, even asking the help of his father-in-law. From June 9 to 11, he helped in the household chores, was polite to his parents-in-law, and was attentive to his daughter. At about eight o'clock in the evening of June 11, his father-in-law, a policeman, reported for work at the city public market. The sisters of Natividad, Lourdes and Anita, went upstairs to sleep, leaving Natividad sewing on the ground floor and the appellant reading a copy of the Reader's Digest. At about midnight, Anita and Lourdes were awakened by the sound of banging on the wall and shattering of chinaware below. Rushing down, they saw the appellant and Natividad talking by the kitchen door, the former holding a bolo. When Anita was about to approach the couple, the appellant started hacking his wife with the bolo. The sisters ran out and called for help. The appellant chased them and overtook Anita, whom he hacked on the head until she lost consciousness. A neighbor, Daniel Cabunta, was awakened, saw the hacking from his window, and told the appellant to stop. The appellant swung his bolo at him, but Daniel parried the blow and wrested the bolo away. The appellant ran towards the City Hall and was intercepted by policeman Pedro Villanueva, to whom he said that he was very much aggrieved. He was locked in jail.

Issues

• Whether or not the fact of marriage, an essential element of parricide, was proved in accordance with the best evidence rule when the prosecution relied on oral testimony rather than the marriage certificate.
• Whether or not the crime committed against Anita Concepcion was attended by treachery.
• Whether or not the appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the acts, so as to be exempt from criminal liability.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule on the best evidence rule and the rule on insanity as an exempting circumstance. On the proof of a document's contents, the Court relied on the settled rule that a failure to object renders otherwise incompetent evidence admissible:

A failure to object will render admissible a relevant evidence otherwise incompetent. The Court cannot on its own motion disregard evidence. Courts will not disregard evidence not objected to, only because it should have been excluded had it been objected to. Evidence introduced without objection becomes property of the case. And all parties are amenable to any favorable or unfavorable effects resulting from the evidence.

This rule bears on the case because the oral testimony proving the marriage was received without objection and therefore became property of the case.

On insanity as an exempting circumstance, the Court stated the standard:

In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act, that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.

This standard bears on the case because the appellant's plea rested on mere abnormality, not complete deprivation of intelligence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the fact of marriage was sufficiently proved. The best proof is of course the marriage certificate, but the oral evidence presented to prove the fact of marriage was not objected to and may therefore be properly considered by the court. The failure to object made the evidence part of the case.

On the second issue, the Court held that the finding of treachery was without foundation to overturn. There was clear proof that the appellant's assault was sudden and unexpected, thus insuring the execution of the crime without danger to him. When Anita saw the appellant hack her sister, she ran out of the house and cried for help, and the appellant chased her and, upon overtaking her, struck her on the head.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the plea of insanity. It is the policy and accepted standard of jurisprudence that the allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved. The law always presumes all acts to be voluntary, and it is thus improper to conclude that acts were executed unconsciously. The Court weighed the appellant's history of confinement for schizophrenia, his smashing of a jar of sugar and of plates and glasses, and his attack on Anita and Daniel without motive. Against these, it set his conduct before the crimes, when he was polite, helped in household chores, washed dishes, read magazines, and pleaded with his wife to live with him; and his conduct after the crimes, when he instinctively fled, answered the policeman responsively that he was aggrieved, and allowed himself to be led to jail. The psychiatric report showed that he was able to recount all the important events in his life between May 1948 and June 1956. The Court concluded that there was more indication of the passionate nature of the appellant, his tendency to violent fits when angry. Breaking glasses and smashing dishes are simply demonstrations of an explosive temper, not clear and satisfactory proof of insanity. He was not deprived of the consciousness of his acts; he was obfuscated by the refusal of his wife to live with him.

Doctrine

First, the fact of marriage in parricide may be proved by oral testimony where the marriage certificate is not offered and the oral evidence is received without objection, because evidence introduced without objection becomes property of the case.

Second, insanity as an exempting circumstance requires complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act, such that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties does not exclude imputability, and the allegation of insanity must be clearly proved, since the law presumes all acts to be voluntary.

Third, violent fits of temper, such as breaking glasses and smashing dishes, are demonstrations of an explosive temper, not proof of insanity.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Remember the line that insanity must amount to complete deprivation of intelligence, for mere abnormality of the mental faculties does not exclude imputability. Examiners use this case to test the standard of proof for insanity as an exempting circumstance and the rule that evidence received without objection becomes property of the case.