ON INSANITY DURING TRIAL

The Motion for Suspension is authorized under Section 12, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides:

Sec. 12. Suspension of arraignment. — The arraignment shall be suspended, if at the time thereof:

(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose.

(b) x x x           x x x          x x x

The arraignment of an accused shall be suspended if at the time thereof he appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition of such nature as to render him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. Under these circumstances, the court must suspend the proceedings and order the mental examination of the accused, and if confinement be necessary for examination, order such confinement and examination. If the accused is not in full possession of his mental faculties at the time he is informed at the arraignment of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, the process is itself a felo de se, for he can neither comprehend the full import of the charge nor can he give an intelligent plea thereto. ⁵⁸

The question of suspending the arraignment lies within the discretion of the trial court. ⁵⁹ And the test to determine whether the proceedings will be suspended depends on the question of whether the accused, even with the assistance of counsel, would have a fair trial. This rule was laid down as early as 1917, thus:

In passing on the question of the propriety of suspending the proceedings against an accused person on the ground of present insanity, the judges should bear in mind that not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency is sufficient to justify such suspension. The test is to be found in the question whether the accused would have a fair trial, with the assistance which the law secures or gives; and it is obvious that under a system of procedure like ours where every accused person has legal counsel, it is not necessary to be so particular as it used to be in England where the accused had no advocate but himself. ⁶⁰

In the American jurisdiction, the issue of the accused's "present insanity" or insanity at the time of the court proceedings is separate and distinct from his criminal responsibility at the time of commission of the act. The defense of insanity in a criminal trial concerns the defendant's mental condition at the time of the crime's commission. "Present insanity" is commonly referred to as "competency to stand trial" ⁶¹ and relates to the appropriateness of conducting the criminal proceeding in light of the defendant's present inability to participate meaningfully and effectively. ⁶² In competency cases, the accused may have been sane or insane during the commission of the offense which relates to a determination of his guilt. However, if he is found incompetent to stand trial, the trial is simply postponed until such time as he may be found competent. Incompetency to stand trial is not a defense; it merely postpones the trial. ⁶³

In determining a defendant's competency to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate, communicate with, and assist his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed. ⁶⁴ This test is prescribed by state law but it exists generally as a statutory recognition of the rule at common law. ⁶⁵ Thus:

[I]f is not enough for the . . . judge to find that the defendant [is] oriented to time and place, and [has] some recollection of events, but that the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. ⁶⁶

There are two distinct matters to be determined under this test: (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with information necessary or relevant to constructing a defense; and (2) whether he is able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it. ⁶⁷ The first requisite is the relation between the defendant and his counsel such that the defendant must be able to confer coherently with his counsel. The second is the relation of the defendant vis-a-vis the court proceedings, i.e., that he must have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings. ⁶⁸

The rule barring trial or sentence of an insane person is for the protection of the accused, rather than of the public. ⁶⁹ It has been held that it is inhuman to require an accused disabled by act of God to make a just defense for his life or liberty. ⁷⁰ To put a legally incompetent person on trial or to convict and sentence him is a violation of the constitutional rights to a fair trial ⁷¹ and due process of law; ⁷² and this has several reasons underlying it. ⁷³ For one, the accuracy of the proceedings may not be assured, as an incompetent defendant who cannot comprehend the proceedings may not appreciate what information is relevant to the proof of his innocence. Moreover, he is not in a position to exercise many of the rights afforded a defendant in a criminal case, e.g., the right to effectively consult with counsel, the right to testify in his own behalf, and the right to confront opposing witnesses, which rights are safeguards for the accuracy of the trial result. Second, the fairness of the proceedings may be questioned, as there are certain basic decisions in the course of a criminal proceeding which a defendant is expected to make for himself, and one of these is his plea. Third, the dignity of the proceedings may be disrupted, for an incompetent defendant is likely to conduct himself in the courtroom in a manner which may destroy the decorum of the court. Even if the defendant remains passive, his lack of comprehension fundamentally impairs the functioning of the trial process. A criminal proceeding is essentially an adversarial proceeding. If the defendant is not a conscious and intelligent participant, the adjudication loses its character as a reasoned interaction between an individual and his community and becomes an invective against an insensible object. Fourth, it is important that the defendant knows why he is being punished, a comprehension which is greatly dependent upon his understanding of what occurs at trial. An incompetent defendant may not realize the moral reprehensibility of his conduct. The societal goal of institutionalized retribution may be frustrated when the force of the state is brought to bear against one who cannot comprehend its significance. ⁷⁴

The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally in the discretion of the trial court. ⁷⁵ Mere allegation of insanity is insufficient. There must be evidence or circumstances that raise a "reasonable doubt" ⁷⁶ or a "bona fide doubt" ⁷⁷ as to defendant's competence to stand trial. Among the factors a judge may consider is evidence of the defendant's irrational behavior, history of mental illness or behavioral abnormalities, previous confinement for mental disturbance, demeanor of the defendant, and psychiatric or even lay testimony bearing on the issue of competency in a particular case. ⁷⁸

EN BANC

G.R. No. 130487               June 19, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.ROBERTO ESTRADA, accused-appellant.