FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227312. September 5, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESSIE HALOC y

CODON , accused-appellant.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

To be exempting from criminal responsibility, insanity is the complete

deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act. Mere abnormality of the
mental faculties does not exempt from criminal responsibility. CAIHTE

The Case

The accused-appellant assails the decision promulgated on August 19, 2015, 1

whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) a rmed with modi cations his conviction for
murder and attempted murder under the judgment rendered on March 20, 2014 by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, in Gubat, Sorsogon in Criminal Case No. 2780
and Criminal Case No. 2781. 2

Antecedents

As summarized by the CA, the factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
Accused-appellant Jessie Haloc y Codon, then fty-one (51) years old,
was apprehended by barangay o cials after he hacked Allan de la Cruz, nine
(9) years and his brother Arnel, four (4) years old, inside the de la Cruz's yard at
Barangay Union, Gubat, Sorsogon on June 22, 2008 at around 12 noon. Arnel
died as a result of the hacking blow to his neck, while Allan sustained injuries on
his upper arm. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, pp. 5, 9)
According to the Joint Inquest Memorandum, the accused, who was
armed with a 24-inch bolo, went to the dela Cruzes' and attempted to strike the
victims' father, Ambrosio who was able to escape. Unfortunately, Ambrosio's
ve (5) sons were following him. Jessie took his ire on Ambrosio's children,
hacking Allan on the arm and taking Arnel and cutting his neck, severing the
jugular veins and nearly decapitating his head resulting to Arnel's immediate
death. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 5)
The accused-appellant, assisted by the Public Attorney's O ce (PAO) did
not submit any counter-affidavit. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 5)
On June 22, 2008, an Information was led charging accused-appellant
of Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 2780 as follows:
That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of June 22, 2008 at Barangay
Union, municipality of Gubat, province of Sorsogon, Philippines,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with treachery and taking advantage of his
superior strength, armed with a bolo, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and acting with
discernment, attack, assault and hack one ALLAN DE LA CRUZ, a
9-year-old minor, hitting the victim on his right arm, thus accused
commences (sic) the commission of Murder directly by overt acts
but was not able to perform all the acts of execution which would
have produce (sic) the crime of Murder by reason of causes or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is, the
said Allan de la Cruz was brought to a hospital and was given
medical assistance which prevented his death, to his damage and
prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 1)
Another Information was led against accused-appellant for Murder in
Criminal Case No. 2781:
That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of June 22, 2008 at Barangay
Union, municipality of Gubat, province of Sorsogon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with treachery and taking advantage of his
superior strength, armed with a bolo, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and acting with
discernment, attack, assault and hack one ARNEL DE LA CRUZ, a
4 year old minor, in icting upon him mortal wounds which caused
his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2781, p. 1)
On September 3, 2008, the original date for the accused's arraignment,
the PAO manifested that he could not effectively interview the accused as he
seemed to be mentally un t. The PAO asked that the accused be rst subjected
to psychiatric evaluation which the trial court granted. (Records, Criminal Case
No. 2780, p. 20)
On July 7, 2010, the Head of the Department of Psychiatry of Bicol
Medical Center, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur submitted a report stating that the
accused is already fit for trial. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 37)
On July 22, 2010, the accused was arraigned and he pleaded "not guilty"
to both charges. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 42; Criminal Case No.
2781, p. 21)
Invoking insanity, the (order of) trial was reversed and the accused-
appellant was first to present evidence.
Araceli Haloc-Ayo (Araceli) older sister of the accused testi ed that the
victims Arnel and Allan were the accused's neighbours. The accused got angry
at them since as they were noisy and he could not sleep. (Rollo, p. 42; TSN, July
11, 2013, pp. 5-6). DETACa

Although she was not present during the actual hacking incident, she
went near the accused right after and found him standing by the trail. He
recognized her and voluntarily gave the bolo to her. Araceli said that she noticed
that her brother's eyes were "blazing" but she just came near him to prevent his
brother from in icting further injury. She said that her brother was acting
differently and was very fierce. (Rollo, p. 41; TSN, July 11, 2013, pp. 3-6)
Days before the incident, Araceli visited the accused in his place and she
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 learned that he has been drinking alcohol since he could not sleep, thinking
about his child who was about to get married. (Rollo, p. 41; TSN, July 11, 2013,
pp. 4-5)
Araceli also admitted that prior to the incident, she brought her brother to
the hospital where he was treated. He got well and was not violent. He also
recognized members of his family. (Rollo, p. 42; TSN, July 11, 2013, p. 6)
Suson Haloc (Susan), the accused's wife, testi ed that she has been
married with him for thirty (30) years. She claimed that her husband was a kind
person. In 2003, Jessie was brought to the Mental Hospital in Cadlan because
of a mental disorder. He was cured with the medicines given him. In 2008, her
husband's mental disorder recurred as he was drinking liquor again. In the last
week of April 2008, the accused was brought to a certain Dr. Gregorio who
prescribed four (4) tablets to him which made her husband well. After a month,
her husband again suffered a mental disorder. She noticed that his eyes were
"glazing," he could not work in the farm normally and he could not recognize
her. Thus she left the house two (2) days before the incident and went to Juban,
Sorsogon to her siblings. (Rollo, p. 42; TSN, March 14, 2013, pp. 3-7)
Dr. Imelda Escuadra (Dr. Escuadra), a psychiatrist, testi ed that the
accused was brought to Don Susano Memorial Mental Hospital in Cadlan on
August 22, 2003 and on July 16, 2007. Although she was not the one who
treated the accused, she con rmed that the accused was a patient of the
hospital based on their records. Dr. Benedicto Aguirre, now deceased, was the
one who personally treated the accused. Another doctor, Dr. Chona Belmonte
also saw the accused on October 8, 2008, November 5, 2008 and December
2008. (Rollo, pp. 40-41; TSN, May 2, 2012, pp. 2-8)
The prosecution did not present evidence. 3
As stated, the RTC rejected the defense of insanity, and convicted the accused-
appellant as charged. 4 It opined that there was no evidence to show that he had been
totally deprived of reason; 5 that, therefore, he had presented no competent witness to
establish his insanity; and that his witnesses had even declared that he had been
treated in 2003 and on April 18, 2008, 6 which, when taken together with the
presumption of law in favor of sanity, doomed his defense of insanity. The RTC
disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE , all premises considered, this court nds accused JESSIE
HAL OC y CODON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Attempted
Murder and Murder.
For Crim. Case No. 2780 : Accused Jessie Haloc y Codon is sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional,
maximum as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
medium as maximum and to indemnify Allan de la Cruz the amount of P5,000
for medical expenses, and
For Crim. Case No. 2781 : Accused Jessie Haloc y Codon is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Arnel
de la Cruz the amount of P50,000 and another P50,000 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED . 7
On appeal, the CA a rmed the convictions, observing that even Dr. Imelda
Escuadra, the psychiatrist of the Don Susano Memorial Mental Hospital in Cadlan, Pili,
Camarines Sur, had testi ed that the mental condition of the accused-appellant had
improved; that during the last time that he had consulted with her, he had no longer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 shown psychotic signs and symptoms; that his mental condition could not be a
mitigating circumstance because no evidence had been presented showing that his
mental condition had diminished his will power; 8 and that, nonetheless, the award of
actual damages of P5,000.00 should be deleted, and interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the civil indemnity and moral damages reckoned from the date of nality of
the judgment until full satisfaction should be imposed. The fallo reads: aDSIHc

WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision

dated March 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54 of Gubat,
Sorsogon, in Criminal Case Nos. 2780 and 2781 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION in that the portion ordering the accused-appellant JESSIE
HALOC y CODON to indemnify Allan de la Cruz in the amount of P5,000.00 for
medical expenses, in Criminal Case No. 2780, is deleted. The award of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal
Case No. 2781, meanwhile, shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum
from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED . 9
Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Both the O ce of the Solicitor General, 1 0 representing the People, and the
Public Attorney's O ce, 1 1 representing the accused-appellant, manifested that in this
appeal they were no longer ling supplemental briefs, and that their briefs led in the
CA be considered.
Hence, the accused-appellant submits that his defense of insanity should have
been appreciated; that the records contained su cient evidence proving his having
been deprived of reason at the time he hacked the victims; and that even assuming that
he was liable for killing Arnel and injuring Allan, he should be favored with the mitigating
circumstance.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
provides as follows:
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, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid
of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, re, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or
by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great
waste and ruin.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
The following are the elements of the felony of murder, namely: (1) that a person
was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code;
and (4) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide. 1 2
There is no denying that the crimes committed by the accused-appellant were
murder and attempted murder. Allan dela Cruz, the victim in the attempted murder,
declared that the accused-appellant had stormed into their house in order to hack
Ambrosio, the victims' father, but Ambrosio had been able to escape the assault by
running away. His escape prompted his ve sons, including Arnel and Allan, to run away
after him. The accused-appellant pursued them, and he rst hacked the 9-years-old
Allan, hitting him in the arm, and then seized the 4-year old Arnel, hacking him in the
neck causing his instantaneous death.
The authorship of the crimes by the accused-appellant became undisputed
because he himself admitted assaulting the victims. Also undisputed were that Arnel
had died from the hacking assault by the accused-appellant, as evidenced by his death
certi cate, and that both victims were minors below 10 years old, as stipulated during
the pre-trial. ETHIDa

The informations charged the accused-appellant with murder and attempted

murder, averring that the crimes were committed with treachery. The convictions were
warranted. The killing of or assault against a child by an adult assailant is always
treated as treacherous, 1 3 even if the treacherous manner of the assault is not shown.
Indeed, the weakness of the minor victim because of his tender years results in the
absence of any danger or risk to the adult assailant. 1 4 The rationale for such treatment
is easy to discern — the minor victim cannot be expected to put up any form of
effective resistance because of his tender age, relatively small frame, and inexperience
in combat. Moreover, a deadly attack against a minor is easier to execute inasmuch as
the minor can offer little, if any, resistance, thereby posing no peril to the attacker.
In his attempt to escape criminal responsibility, the accused-appellant submits
that he was entitled to the bene t of the exempting circumstance of insanity. He
alleges that he was insane at the time of his lethal assaults, and, therefore, he should
not be criminally responsible for the death and injuries he had inflicted.
The submission of the accused-appellant is unwarranted.
Insanity is one of the recognized exempting circumstances under Article 12 of
the Revised Penal Code, thus:
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — The
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during
a lucid interval.
xxx xxx xxx
Strictly speaking, a person acting under any of the exempting circumstances
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 commits a crime but cannot be held criminally liable therefor. The exemption from
punishment stems from the complete absence of intelligence or free will in performing
the act. The defense of insanity is thus in the nature of a confession or avoidance. The
accused who asserts it is, in effect, admitting to the commission of the crime. Hence,
the burden of proof shifts to him, and his side must then prove his insanity with clear
and convincing evidence. 1 5
The defense of insanity rests on the test of cognition on the part of the accused.
Insanity, to be exempting, requires the complete deprivation of intelligence, not only of
the will, in committing the criminal act. 1 6 Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will
not exclude imputability. The accused must be so insane as to be incapable of
entertaining a criminal intent. He must be deprived of reason, and must be shown to
have acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the
power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. 1 7
Further discussion of insanity by the Court in People v. Dungo 1 8 is relevant, thus:
One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the
offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot
be held criminally responsible for his acts. His unlawful act is the product of a
mental disease or a mental defect. In order that insanity may relieve a person
from criminal responsibility, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation
of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of
cognition; that he acts without the least discernment; that there be complete
absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. (People v. Puno , 105 SCRA
151)
It is di cult to distinguish sanity from insanity. There is no de nite
de ned border between sanity and insanity. Under foreign jurisdiction, there are
three major criteria in determining the existence of insanity, namely: delusion
test, irresistible impulse test, and the right and wrong test. Insane delusion is
manifested by a false belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which
would be incredible under the given circumstances to the same person if he is of
compos mentis. Under the delusion test, an insane person believes in a state of
things, the existence of which no rational person would believe. A person acts
under an irresistible impulse when, by reason of duress or mental disease, he
has lost the power to choose between right and wrong, to avoid the act in
question, his free agency being at the time destroyed. Under the right and wrong
test, a person is insane when he suffers from such perverted condition of the
mental and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing
between right and wrong. (See 44 C.J.S. 2) cSEDTC

So far, under our jurisdiction, there has been no case that lays down a
de nite test or criterion for insanity. However, We can apply as test or criterion
the de nition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative
Code, which states that 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 by disordered function of the sensory or of the
intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition." Insanity as de ned
above is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties
which is manifested in language or conduct. An insane person has no full and
clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act.
T h u s, insanity may be shown by surrounding circumstances
fairly throwing light on the subject, such as evidence of the alleged
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 deranged person's general conduct and appearance, his acts and
conduct inconsistent with his previous character and habits, his
irrational acts and beliefs, and his improvident bargains .
Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of the
person whose sanity is in issue, at the very time of doing the act which is the
subject of inquiry. However, it is permissible to receive evidence of his mental
condition for a reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in
question. Direct testimony is not required nor the speci c acts of derangement
essential to establish insanity as a defense. The vagaries of the mind can only
be known by outward acts: thereby we read the thoughts, motives and emotions
of a person; and through which we determine whether his acts conform to the
practice of people of sound mind. (People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87)
Based on the foregoing, the accused-appellant did not establish the exempting
circumstance of insanity. His mental condition at the time of the commission of the
felonies he was charged with and found guilty of was not shown to be so severe that it
had completely deprived him of reason or intelligence when he committed the felonies
charged. Based on the records, he had been administered medication to cure his
mental illness, but there was no showing that he suffered from complete deprivation of
intelligence. On the contrary, the medical professionals presented during the trial
conceded that he had been treated only to control his mental condition.
There was also no showing that the accused-appellant's actions manifested his
insanity immediately after the hacking incidents. His own sister, Araceli Haloc-Ayo,
declared that he had recognized her and had surrendered the bolo to her after his
deadly assault. Clearly, he had not been totally deprived of the capacity of cognition.
The accused-appellant was subjected to medical tests after the hacking
incidents. According to Dr. Imelda Escuadra, the psychiatrist of the Don Susano
Memorial Mental Hospital in Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, the medications previously
prescribed to him were medicines administered to a patient suffering psychosis. She
did not categorically state, however, that he had been psychotic. Nonetheless, even if
we were to deduce from her testimony that he had been suffering some form of
psychosis, there was still no testimony to the effect that such psychosis had totally
deprived him of intelligence or reason.
In view of all the foregoing, the accused-appellant's actions and actuations prior
to, simultaneously with and in the aftermath of the lethal assaults did not support his
defense of insanity. This, coupled with the presumption of law in favor of sanity, now
warrants the a rmance of his convictions, for he had not been legally insane when he
committed the felonies.
Neither should his mental condition be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
As we have noted, the Defense presented no evidence to show that his condition had
diminished the exercise of his will power. 1 9
To conform to People v. Jugueta , 2 0 we modify the awards of civil liabilities. In
Criminal Case No. 2781, the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages for the death
of Arnel are each increased to P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00 are
granted in addition, the same to be paid to the heirs of the late Arnel. In Criminal Case
No. 2780, the sums of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages,
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages are granted to Allan. In both cases, all the
amounts shall earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the nality of this decision
until full settlement.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE , the Court AFFIRMS IN ALL RESPECTS the decision
promulgated on August 19, 2015 by the Court of Appeals, subject to the following
MODIFICATIONS , namely: SDAaTC

(1) In Criminal Case No. 2781, the accused-appellant shall pay to the heirs of
the late Arnel de la Cruz civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of
P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P75,000.00;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 2780, the accused-appellant shall pay to Allan de la
Cruz P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(3) The accused-appellant shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
all the amounts herein granted as civil liabilities reckoned from the nality
of this decision until full settlement, plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED .
Leonardo-de Castro, C.J., Jardeleza and Tijam, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, * J., is on wellness leave.

Footnotes
* On wellness leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of the Court),
and concurred in by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and Associate Justice Ramon
Paul L. Hernando.
2. CA rollo, pp. 39-45; penned by Presiding Judge Bernardo R. Jimenez, Jr.
3. Rollo, pp. 2-5.
4. CA rollo, p. 44.

5. Id.
6. Id. at 42-43.
7. Id. at 45.
8. Rollo, p. 9.
9. Id. at 10.

10. Id. at 19-21.

11. Id. at 24-26.
12. People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 512, 522.
13. People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 188610, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 548, 560.

14. People v. Cabarrubias, G.R. Nos. L-94709-10, June 15, 1993, 223 SCRA 363, 369.
15. People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114, November 29, 2017.
16. People v. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 267, 278-279.
17. People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000, 333 SCRA 699, 713.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 18. G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 860, 866-868.
19. Article 14 (9), Revised Penal Code.
20. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com