G.R. No. 96832. November 19, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOTIMO DANAO @ “TIMO”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
NOCON, J.:
Forever to be etched in Teotimo Danao’s mind and soul is the
gruesome killing of his wife, upon whom he himself inflicted no less than
thirty two (32) stab wounds on her lifeless body.
It was about 9 to 10 o’clock in the morning of October 26, 1988,
when Victorio Sunga, brother-in-law of Ruby Guintu Danao (now deceased) arrived
in his house and received the unexpected news about the death of his
sister-in-law, Ruby. He proceeded to
the house of accused-appellant which was located about fifty (50) meters away
from his residence and saw appellant by the window holding a bolo. Victorio Sunga asked herein appellant what
happened and the latter replied that he killed his wife, Ruby and by reason of
which he considers himself a criminal.[1]
At about the same time, Vicente Guintu, Sr., father of the
deceased was informed by one of his grandsons, that their mother was killed by
their father. He immediately proceeded
to the house of herein appellant and the latter said to him, “Come here, I
will not call you father anymore only Enteng.”[2]
Victorio Sunga pleaded to the appellant to surrender himself,
which the latter did, throwing two kitchen knives made of stainless steel. Subsequently, appellant came down from the
house and surrendered himself to the barangay officials.[3]
The National Center for Mental Health gave a brief background history[4]
on the mental health of the accused in its report dated March 30, 1989, after
the latter has killed his wife, to wit:
” x x x .
“Sometime in
1981 he went to Saudi Arabia to work in a construction firm for two years. When he came home in 1983 he became
disappointed when he found out that much of the money he was sending to his
family have gone up in smoke due to wife and brother-in-law’s spending
spree. He confronted his wife but she
told him that the money was used for the payment of hospital bills when their
youngest child got sick. He felt bad
about this but kept it to himself.
“Behavioral
changes were noted sometime in 1986 after he had a misunderstanding with his
cousin when the latter threatened to harm him with a gun. He became frightened and went into hiding
for two days. Upon returning home, he
was observed to be sleepless, anxious, in deep thought and claimed of seeing a
devil. He was brought to UST hospital on
March, 1986 for psychiatric treatment. Impression then was Paranoid Disorder with Reactive Psychosis. He was given Tranquilizers and was managed
as an out patient. However, he did not
come back for check-up as he was noted at home to be asymptomatic.
“On October 26,
1988, he allegedly stabbed his wife to death with a knife due to his
jealousy. He was apprehended by police
authorities and was put to jail charge with Parricide. While in jail, oddities in behavior
recurred. Because of these, he was
brought here per commitment order coming from the court for physical and mental
examination.”
The recommendation of the National Center for Mental Health was
to treat and confine appellant, as they found him to be “still psychotic
or insane” and as such incompetent to stand the rigors of a court trial.[5]
However, five months later, specifically on August 24, 1989, a
petition for release was filed by the National Center for Mental Health as the
accused had shown considerable improvement and is now competent to stand
trial. Its findings are as follows:
“In view of the
foregoing mental and physical examinations and observations, patient Teotimo
Danao y Manansala, he was found suffering from a mental disorder called
Schizophrenia or insanity, manifestation of which have been mentioned in the
previous report rendered to the Honorable Court.
“At present, he
showed considerable improvement and the Forensic Medical Staff believes the
patient is now competent to stand trial.
“It is
respectfully prayed for the Honorable Court to grant us the authority to
transfer patient to his court of origin for proper disposition of his case.
“Likewise, it is
recommended that patient should undergo regular monthly follow-up at the Out
Patient Service of this hospital to prevent recurrence of his mental
illness.”[6]
The third of the ten (10) children of appellant, by the name of
Maritess Danao testified that on the morning of October 26, 1988, she got up at
5 o’clock in the morning and was asked by her mother to buy a box of
matches. When Maritess returned with
the box of matches, she noticed her father holding her second youngest
sister. A few hours later, she went to
her grandparents house which is five (5) houses away from their residence to
fetch water.[7]
It was at this moment when one of her brothers, Ricky Danao, who was on the
first floor of their house, noticed that his father got hold of a bolo and went
straight upstairs. Though Ricky was
downstairs, he witnessed his father stab his mother because the flooring of
their house is made of bamboo slats of one (1) inch apart.[8]
When Maritess Danao was about to return to their house, she was
met by Ricky Danao who told her that their father killed their mother. On their way out of their grandparents’
house, they were met by their other brother and sister who were all bloodied.
As a result of this incident, appellant Teotimo Danao was charged
with the crime of Parricide before the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe,
Pampanga under an Information[9] which
reads:
“That on or
about the 26th day of October, 1988 in Barangay Esteban, Municipality of
Macabebe, Province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused Teotimo Danao y Manansala @
“Timo”, with intent to kill and armed with two (2) kitchen knives,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and
stab Ruby Guintu-Danao, his legitimate wife, thereby inflicting upon her mortal
and fatal injuries which directly caused her death shortly thereafter.
All contrary to law.”
After a trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a decision[10]
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused
guilty as above stated, the Court hereby renders judgment sentencing the
accused as follows:
1. To
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the accessories of the law;
2. To indemnify the heirs
of the victim in the amount of P17,000.00 as compensatory and actual damages;
3. To pay likewise the
heirs of the victim the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages; and
4. To pay the amount of
P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.”
Accused-appellant interposes as his defense the exempting
circumstance of insanity.
We are not convinced.
The nature of insanity may be gleaned from the definition of
insane persons in Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code which
provides:
“Insanity is a
manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain, or a
more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality,
functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or
disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by
impaired or disordered volition.”
Article 800 of the Civil Code provides:
“The law presumes that every person
is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.”
The allegation of insanity must be clearly proved. The law presumes all acts to be
voluntary. Not every aberration of the
mind or exhibition of mental deficiency is insanity.
As held in People vs. Puno:[11]
“Insanity under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code means that the accused must be deprived
completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime (People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658, 660).
“Insanity exists
when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least
discernment because there is complete absence of the power to discern, or there
is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
imputability. (People vs. Ambal, G.R.
No. 52688, October 17, 1980; People vs. Renegado, L-27031, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA
275, 286; People vs. Cruz, 109 Phil. 288, 292).”
When insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal
responsibility, the evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the
act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution.[12]
If the evidence pointed to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime,
the accused cannot be acquitted. He is
presumed to be sane when he committed it.
The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of
sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt.[13]
Insanity is a defense in the nature of a confession and avoidance, and as such
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant contends that Dra. Santiago’s declaration as to his
insanity was also corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Johnevert R. Jimenez,
resident physician of the Center. As
further contended, the testimonies of Dra. Santiago and Dr. Jimenez were
supported by the antecedent fact that appellant was examined for mental
disorder at the University of Sto. Tomas, Manila, prior to the commission of
the crime charged as testified to by his children, Maritess and Ricky
Danao. In short, appellant submits that
he was insane, with complete absence of power to discern, and totally deprived
of the freedom of will when he committed the crime.
The foregoing contentions do not deserve merit.
As the records will show, Dr. Jimenez just made an initial
examination on the mental condition of the appellant after he was admitted at
the Center. He testified:
“Atty. Silvestre:
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, in your residency at the
National Center for Mental Health, do you recall whether you treated a person
by the name of Teotimo Danao?
Dr. Johnevert Jimenez:
A. Yes, sir, I was the initial attending
physician of that patient.
Q. When did you first attend to this patient by
the name of Teotimo Danao?
A. From the time he was admitted sometime in
November 1988 until March when I submitted my initial court report.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Mr. witness, you said that you examined the
patient while he was confined at the National Center for Mental Health, after this
first endorsement which is dated March 30, 1989 recommending for further
treatment, did you further examine the patient?
A. No, sir, Dr. Avelina (sic) Medrano-Medina
was the next attending physician of Teotimo Danao.”[14]
The participation of Dra. Sylvia B. Santiago, Chief, Forensic
Psychiatry Service of the Center, was merely to indorse the “Report on the
mental and physical condition of patient Teotimo Danao y Manansala” dated
March 30, 1989 (Exhibit “1-A”, “1-B” and “1-C”)
jointly signed by Dr. Johnevert R. Jimenez and Dr. Nicanor L. Echavez as shown
in her 1st Indorsement (Exhibit “1”) which contained the following:
“Respectfully
forwarded to the Honorable Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Masantol-Macabebe,
Masantol, Pampanga the enclosed clinical case report on the mental and physical
condition of patient TEOTIMO DANAO Y MANANSALA accused in Criminal Case No. 88-133,
in compliance with the order of this Court.”[15]
Dra. Santiago merely indorsed the “Follow-up report on the
present mental and physical condition of patient TEOTIMO DANAO Y MANANSALA,
etc.” dated August 24, 1989 (Exhibit “2”, “3-A”,
“3-B”, “3-C” and “3-D”) jointly signed by Dra.
Adelita Medrano-Medina and Dr. Isagani S. Gonzales as can be shown in her 1st
Indorsement of even date which also contained the following:
“Respectfully
forwarded to the Honorable Judge, Municipal Trial Court Masantol-Macabebe,
Masantol, Pampanga the enlisted clinical case report on the mental and physical
condition of patient TEOTIMO DANAO Y MANANSALA accused in Criminal Case No. 88-133,
in compliance with order of this court.”[16]
Clearly, Dra. Santiago did not actually examine the mental
condition of the appellant during his confinement for alleged insanity at the
Center.
The testimonies of the two doctors, Dra. Sylvia Santiago and Dr.
Johnevert Jimenez seemingly were influenced by the disclosure of the appellant
of his previous consultation at the UST Hospital sometime in 1986. They did not examine the accused before
October 26, 1988, the date when he killed his wife, but after the killing. At the UST Hospital on March, 1986,
appellant was merely given tranquilizers and was treated as an out
patient. Thus, Dr. Jimenez testified as
follows:
“Atty. Silvestre:
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, the alleged crime took
place sometime on October 26, 1988 and based on your examination of the
patient, did you find out from the patient whether prior to that he was already
sick of that ailment which is mental disorder?
Dr. Jimenez:
A. Yes, sir. Upon interviews, the patient relates that was sometime in 1986 wherein
admissive behavior were observed that he was brought to the UST Hospital for
psychotic examination or consultation and he was given psychosis medication but
he did not come back for follow-up treatment. Then sometime in October 1988, he allegedly stabbed his wife. So based on our findings we believed that
the patient was suffering from psychosis before, during and after the
commission of the crime.[17]
During cross-examination, Dr. Jimenez testified that appellant
was found to have no record of any previous admission at the National Center
for Mental Health. He further
testified:
“Court:
Q. Doctor, you will agree with the Court that
Teotimo Danao was first admitted at the hospital, you had no record that he was
previously confined there for examination.
Dr. Jimenez:
A. Yes, your honor.
Q. You will also agree with the Court that in
accordance with your examination his control of his impulse is weak?
A. Yes, your honor.
Q. And he could easily overwhelm by emotions?
A. Based on the mental status, yes, your
honor.
Q. With the agreement with the Court you will
also agree that a person overwhelm by emotions maybe sane but is only overwhelm
by emotions?
A. It could be a part of the symptoms, your
honor.[18]
It is the impression of this Court that the appellant is
purporting insanity to exculpate himself from his criminal liability.
“Fiscal Agpawa.
Q. Mr. Witness, it was only after the death of
your wife that you were treated at the National Mental Hospital. Is that it?
Teotimo Danao:
A. What I remember I was already being checked
up at the UST Hospital before the death of my wife, sir.
Q. But you were only committed at the national
Mental Hospital after the death of your wife?
A. I do not know, sir.
Fiscal Agpawa:
That
is all, your Honor.
Court:
Q. You know that you were admitted to the
National mental Hospital?
A. I do not know why I was brought there, sir.
Q. You will admit that you were brought there?
A. When I woke up I just discovered that I was
at the national mental Hospital.
Q. Were you interviewed there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you answered questions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You answered the question with respect to
matters you know?
A. Yes, sir.”[19]
In the case at bar, there is no clear and convincing evidence
that appellant was insane during the commission of the crime. The fact is, prior to the commission of the
crime, appellant was engaged in fishing and was a “jueteng” collector
for the last two years. Victorio Sunga
testified:
“Fiscal Pangilinan:
Q. What is the name of the husband of Ruby
Danao?
Victorio Sunga:
A. Teotimo Danao, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Do you know the occupation or vocation of
the accused Teotimo Danao?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was his work?
A. He is a fisherman ‘mamalakaya’.
Q. Where does he exercise is (sic) profession
or vocation?
A. In the sea, sir.
Q. For how long have you known the accused
engaged in fishing at the sea?
A. Since he got married.
Q. Aside from fishing do you know if ever the
accused is engaged in any occupation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of work was he engaged aside from
fishing?
xxx xxx xxx
A. He is a collector in “weteng”
sir.
Q. Where does he exercise that
“weteng” collector?
A. In San Esteban, Macabebe, Pampanga, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. For how long have you known him engaged in
weteng collector?
A. Maybe, sir, for two years already, sir.[20]
Maritess Danao likewise testified:
“Fiscal Pangilinan:
Q. What was the occupation or vocation of your
father before October 26, 1988?
Maritess Danao:
A. He was a jueteng bet collector, sir.
Q. Of your own personal knowledge when was the
last date that your father engaged in jueteng be collecting?
A. A few days before the incident my father
has stopped collecting jueteng bet and mother was the one who collected jueteng
bet then.
Q. How long was your father was collecting
jueteng before he stopped?
A. For quite a time already, sir.[21]
The evidence before Us says that appellant was not insane during
the commission of the crime. Insanity
must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit an accused on the
ground of insanity.[22] In
the absence of such proof, it will be presumed that the offender committed the
crime when he was sane. The presumption
is in favor of sanity. The defense must
prove insanity beyond reasonable doubt.[23]
It has been repeatedly held that conclusions and findings of fact
by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a
better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of
witnesses while testifying in the case. The trial court had the privilege of examining the deportment and
demeanor of the witnesses and therefore, it can discern if such witnesses were telling
the truth or not.[24]
Moreover, the state should guard against sane murderers escaping
punishment through a general plea of insanity.[25]
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender however,
should be considered in favor of the appellant. His surrender to the barangay officials[26]
was spontaneous in such manner that it shows the intent of the accused to
surrender unconditionally, to the authorities, either because he acknowledges
his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture.
Under Article 63, par. 2 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, it
provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
two indivisible penalties, like reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty of
parricide (Article 246), and there is present one (1) mitigating circumstance
with no aggravating circumstance to affect the same, the lesser penalty shall
be applied, which in this case is reclusion perpetua. The penalty imposed by the trial court is correct except that the
indemnity be P50,000.00.[27]
WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused-appellant Teotimo
Danao having been proved beyond reasonable doubt and there being no reversible
error in the decision appealed herefrom, the same is hereby AFFIRMED with the
modification that the indemnity to be paid by the appellant is hereby increased
to P50,000.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1]
T.S.N., January 22, 1990, pp. 16-22.
[2]
T.S.N., July 9, 1990, pp. 29-30.
[3]
T.S.N., January 22, 1990, p. 42.
[4]
Records, pp. 103-105.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Records, pp. 7-8.
[7]
T.S.N., February 1, 1990, pp. 4-24.
[8]
T.S.N., February 26, 1990, pp. 24-25.
[9]
Records, p. 1.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 18-21.
[11]
No. L-33211, 105 SCRA 151, 158-159 (1981).
[12]
U.S. vs. Guevarra, 27 Phil. 547.
[13]
People vs. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 199 SCRA 860 (1991).
[14]
T.S.N., September 14, 1990, pp. 8, 15.
[15]
Records, p. 102.
[16]
Records, p. 5.
[17]
T.S.N., September 14, 1990, pp. 23-24.
[18]
Ibid., at pp. 27-28.
[19]
T.S.N., October 9, 1990, pp. 11-12.
[20]
T.S.N., January 22, 1990, pp. 8-10.
[21]
T.S.N., February 1, 1990, pp. 26-27.
[22]
U.S. vs. Guevarra, 27 Phil. 547 (1914).
[23]
People vs. Cruz, 109 Phil. 288 (1960).
[24]
People vs. Dungo, supra.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
T.S.N., January 22, 1990, p. 42.
[27]
People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 86455, 189 SCRA 643 (1990).