Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 418 views

    People Vs Umawid

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    Umawid claimed an insanity defense for killing a 2-year-old child and attacking his nephew. However, the doctor who examined Umawid could not determine if he was psychotic at the time of the crimes. The court found Umawid guilty, as he failed to prove his insanity claim. The appeals court upheld this ruling, as insanity defenses admit to the crimes and Umawid did not show he was insane. While Umawid could have attacked unexpectedly, treachery was shown through the victim's young age, which rendered them unable to defend themselves. Ultimately, Umawid's insanity defense was unsubstantiated and he was rightly convicted of murder and attempted murder.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Umawid

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    418 views1 page
    Umawid claimed an insanity defense for killing a 2-year-old child and attacking his nephew. However, the doctor who examined Umawid could not determine if he was psychotic at the time of the crimes. The court found Umawid guilty, as he failed to prove his insanity claim. The appeals court upheld this ruling, as insanity defenses admit to the crimes and Umawid did not show he was insane. While Umawid could have attacked unexpectedly, treachery was shown through the victim's young age, which rendered them unable to defend themselves. Ultimately, Umawid's insanity defense was unsubstantiated and he was rightly convicted of murder and attempted murder.

    Original Description:

    people vs umawid

    Original Title

    People vs Umawid

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Umawid claimed an insanity defense for killing a 2-year-old child and attacking his nephew. However, the doctor who examined Umawid could not determine if he was psychotic at the time of the crimes. The court found Umawid guilty, as he failed to prove his insanity claim. The appeals court upheld this ruling, as insanity defenses admit to the crimes and Umawid did not show he was insane. While Umawid could have attacked unexpectedly, treachery was shown through the victim's young age, which rendered them unable to defend themselves. Ultimately, Umawid's insanity defense was unsubstantiated and he was rightly convicted of murder and attempted murder.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    418 views1 page

    People Vs Umawid

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    Umawid claimed an insanity defense for killing a 2-year-old child and attacking his nephew. However, the doctor who examined Umawid could not determine if he was psychotic at the time of the crimes. The court found Umawid guilty, as he failed to prove his insanity claim. The appeals court upheld this ruling, as insanity defenses admit to the crimes and Umawid did not show he was insane. While Umawid could have attacked unexpectedly, treachery was shown through the victim's young age, which rendered them unable to defend themselves. Ultimately, Umawid's insanity defense was unsubstantiated and he was rightly convicted of murder and attempted murder.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Facts:

    Umawid set up the defense of insanity when he attacked and killed with a Panabas a 2-yr old child and
    subsequently his own nephew whose fingers were amputated. However the doctor he presented said
    that he was manifesting psychotic symptoms he could not tell with certainty whether Umawid was
    psychotic at the time of the commission of the crimes. The RTC found him to be guilty of Murder beyond
    reasonable doubt in the case of the 2 yr old Maureen, and Frustrated Murder for his nephew. He was
    sentenced to reclusion perpetua plus pay damages. The CA also upheld RTC decision in that in pleading
    insanity, he admitted to committing the crimes and that he failed to prove his insanity.

    Issues:

    Was he rightly convicted?

    Ruling:

    Yes. The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance because an accused invoking
    the same admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of such
    insanity. As there is a presumption in favor of sanity, anyone who pleads the said defense bears the
    burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence.

    Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, i.e., when
    the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is a complete
    absence of power to discern, or there is total deprivation of freedom of the will, no full and clear
    understanding of the nature and consequences of his or her acts.

    Umawids defense of insanity remained unsubstantiated. Doctor only examined Umawid six (6) months
    before the latter committed the crimes and three (3) months and four (4) months thereafter. Notably,
    he admitted that his findings did not include Umawids mental disposition immediately before or at the
    very moment when he committed such crimes.

    Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery to Murder. It may then be deduced that two (2) conditions must
    concur for treachery to be appreciated: first, the employment of means of execution that gives the
    person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, second, the means of execution
    was deliberate or consciously adopted.

    1) Unexpected and sudden attack which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put up a
    defense is the essence of treachery. 2) The killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if
    the manner of the assault is not shown because the weakness of the victim due to her tender
    age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.

    *Although he could have put up a defense, treachery may still be appreciated on account of Jeffreys
    minority, considering that he was just 15 years of age when Umawid attacked him

    *Although it was actually complex crime of Murder and Attempted murder, he cannot be convicted of
    these as he was not originally charged for it. To do so would violate due process.

    You might also like