Skip to main content

In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.

The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. 37 Under the classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free Will. 38 Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. 39 When he commits a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso), the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily, 40 i.e., with freedom, intelligence and intent. 41 Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired. 42
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that every person is of sound mind 43 and that all acts are voluntary. 44 The moral and legal presumption under our law is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. 45 This presumption, however, may be overthrown by other factors; and one of these is insanity which exempts the actor from criminal liability. 46
The Revised Penal Code in Article 12 (1) provides:
Art. 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.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted during a lucid interval. If the court therefore finds the accused insane when the alleged crime was committed, he shall be acquitted but the court shall order his confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be released without danger. An acquittal of the accused does not result in his outright release, but rather in a verdict which is followed by commitment of the accused to a mental institution. 47
In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. 48 The accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent." 49 He must be deprived of reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. 50
Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity, he who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. 51 And the evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. 52

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Given the circumstances obtaining here, the court finds the search conducted by the port authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of the accused’s constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the bag of the accused revealed the firearms and ammunitions, accused is deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The firearms and ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible as evidence against [the] accused. 146
Post a Comment
Read more
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously . In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused . Such intent to pos...
Post a Comment
Read more
It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. Given the circumstances obtaining here, we find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the box of piaya revealed several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto , justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The packs of marijuana obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible as evidence against appellant. 130 (Citations omitted) The reason behind it is that there is a reasonable reduced expectation of privacy when coming into airports or ports of travel: Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting ...
1 comment
Read more