PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL CARANTO Y SOBLECHERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Caranto

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Michael Caranto y Soblechero, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People charged Caranto with stabbing his uncle, Anacleto Soblechero, Jr., to death in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, on April 5, 2007. Caranto did not deny the killing; he staked his defense on insanity, having been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia years before. The case matters because it draws the fine line between the exempting circumstance of insanity, which erases criminal liability, and the mitigating circumstance of illness, which merely reduces the penalty. It also reminds us that treachery is never presumed from the mere suddenness of an attack.

Procedural History

The First Assistant City Prosecutor of San Carlos City filed an Information for murder. When arraigned, Caranto pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the victim was the brother of Caranto's mother, making him Caranto's uncle. Trial on the merits followed, with the prosecution presenting Perla Soblechero and Gladys Soblechero, and the defense presenting Caranto's mother Josefina Soblechero Caranto, his sister Mylene Caranto Muñoz, and Dr. Beatriz Inumpa.

The Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57, rendered judgment on July 25, 2013, finding Caranto guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs seventy-five thousand pesos as death indemnity, seventy-five thousand pesos as moral damages, ten thousand one hundred thirty-five pesos as actual expenses, and the costs of suit. Caranto appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's findings on sanity, on guilt beyond reasonable doubt, on murder instead of homicide, and on the mitigating circumstances of illness and intoxication.

Facts

In the year 2000, Caranto's mother brought him to the Pangasinan Medical Center because he was showing peculiar signs in his appearance. He was diagnosed with paranoia schizophrenia and given oral medications. He was later confined at the Baguio General Hospital psychiatric ward several times, beginning in August 2003 and continuing through December 2004, February 2005, September 2005, May 2006, and January 2008. Dr. Inumpa testified that his illness is incurable but treatable, that he may have lucid intervals, and that without continuous medication he would relapse into hallucinations and delusions.

On March 28, 2007, his mother left for Santa Barbara, Pangasinan, after Caranto became violent, drove her away, tried to burn their house, and accused her of poisoning him. She gave him his medicine that day but did not see him take it. On the night of April 4, 2007, Caranto slept at the house of his sister Mylene, as he and her husband were supposed to work the next day. At about six in the morning of April 5, he woke and asked his brother-in-law why they were not reporting for work; told that the man needed sleep, Caranto got angry and left. He returned at nine, ate, and then went to a neighbor's house to continue fencing a yard. At eleven, Mylene was called because he was shouting and creating trouble; she chained him, and a relative unchained him after thirty minutes.

At about three thirty in the afternoon, Caranto went to the house of his uncle Anacleto, who was making a kite, and asked for coffee. Anacleto told him there was no coffee in the house. Caranto suddenly pulled a knife from his waist and stabbed his uncle, then ran behind the house and fled. Later, when Mylene asked him whether it was true that he stabbed their uncle, he answered yes, but that he did not know what he did. He was arrested, and the trial court convicted him of murder.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused-appellant overcame the presumption of sanity and proved insanity at the time he killed his uncle.
• Whether or not his guilt for the crime charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the killing was qualified by treachery, making him liable for murder instead of homicide.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of illness and intoxication may be appreciated in his favor.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery.

This is the provision under which the trial court convicted Caranto, and its qualifying circumstance of treachery is the very element the Supreme Court found wanting.

Article 15, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Article 15. Their concept. 3. That the act is executed in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.

This is the provision invoked for the claimed mitigating circumstance of intoxication, which the Court rejected for lack of proof.

Article 13, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. 9. That the offender is suffering from an illness which would diminish the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

This is the provision the Court applied to credit Caranto's schizophrenia as a mitigating circumstance even while denying the exemption of insanity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and that an accused who invokes insanity bears the burden of proving it at the time of the crime, for insanity presupposes a complete deprivation of reason and freedom of will. Caranto failed to discharge that burden. On the day of the killing he knew he was supposed to work and even proceeded to his workplace; his stabbing was a reaction to his uncle's reply that there was no coffee; and afterward he confessed to his sister, showing he understood what he had done. Although Dr. Inumpa confirmed the illness, she also testified that schizophrenics have lucid intervals, and no proof showed that he was not in one when he stabbed his uncle.

On the second issue, the Court found the elements of the crime established: a person was killed; the accused killed him; and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. The Court noted that the killing of an uncle by a nephew is not parricide, since the relationship is not among those enumerated.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated. There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms that tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. But mere suddenness of the attack does not amount to treachery, and treachery is not determined by the type of weapon used. The prosecution failed to show that Caranto deliberately and consciously adopted the unexpected attack, or deliberately chose the weapon, to ensure the crime. Absent treachery, he is guilty only of homicide.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected intoxication, because beyond his sister's testimony that many were saying he got heavily drunk, there was no sufficient proof that he was drunk during the incident, that he was not a habitual drinker, or that he did not become intoxicated pursuant to a plan to commit a crime. The Court, however, agreed that his illness must be credited as mitigating, since it diminished his will power without depriving him of awareness of his acts. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. 2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.

Accordingly, the maximum was drawn from the minimum period of reclusion temporal, and the minimum from prision mayor. The Court also reduced the civil indemnity and moral damages to fifty thousand pesos each, affirmed the actual damages of ten thousand one hundred thirty-five pesos, and imposed interest at six percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Doctrine

First, sanity is presumed; insanity, as an exempting circumstance, must be proved by the accused to have existed immediately before or at the moment of the crime, and it requires complete deprivation of reason and freedom of will. Second, a mental illness that merely diminishes the exercise of will power without depriving the offender of consciousness of his acts is not exempting but mitigating under Article 13, paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code. Third, treachery requires a deliberate and conscious choice of means, method, or form that ensures execution without risk to the offender; suddenness alone, or the type of weapon used, does not establish it. Fourth, intoxication is mitigating only when proved and when not habitual or subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, under Article 15, paragraph 3.

Disposition

The Court modified the trial court's judgment, finding Caranto guilty of homicide instead of murder and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the damages reduced as stated.

Remember This

Memorize the dividing line: insanity exempts only when reason and will are completely gone, while a lesser mental illness that merely weakens will power is mitigating under Article 13, paragraph 9. Examiners like to use this case to test the insanity defense, the suddenness-versus-treachery distinction, and the proper indeterminate penalty when only a mitigating circumstance attends a homicide.