PEOPLE v.

BAÑEZ feloniously attack, assault and stab several times his father, Bernardo Bañez
January 20, 1999 | Mendoza, J. | Exempting circumstances y Padilla xxx”. The defense made a plea of insanity.
3. Testimonies of Dr. Gerona III and Wilfredo’s mother, Marina, were
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: The People of the Philippines presented by the defense. Dr. Gerona III testified that 20 days after the
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Wildredo Bañez y Cabael alias “Willy” commission of the crime, Wilfredo was admitted to the hospital and was
SUMMARY: Accused-appellant Wilfredo was found guilty of parricide for diagnosed with schizophrenia (“may be 99% correct or 1% wrong”), which
killing his father with aggravating circumstances of dwelling and habitual he describes as a mental disorder characterized by thought disturbances,
intoxication. He was sentenced to death. Wilfredo made a plea of insanity. hallucination, suspiciousness, and deterioration in areas of work, social
However, the trial court ruled that the testimonies of his doctor and mother relations, and self-care. However, he could not say whether Wilfredo was
failed to prove that he was completely deprived of reason at the time of the insane at the time of the commission of the crime.
commission of the crime. The SC affirmed the decision of finding him guilty of 4. Marina testified that long before the incident, Wilfredo was confined for
parricide but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua (did not consider the more than a year at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center for addiction to
aggravating circumstances for lack of proof). gasoline and after his release, he stayed in his father’s house. Wilfredo was
DOCTRINE: also treated at Baguio General Hospital but was not confined. Moreover,
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following after killing his father, Wilfredo was confined at a mental hospital for
are exempt from criminal liability. treatment. Dr. Gerona III also found a co-relation between Wilfredo’s
1. 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid addiction to gasoline and his schizophrenia. It is possible that his
interval. schizophrenia resulted from his addiction to gasoline among other factors.
2. xxx 5. Trial court ruled that the defense of insanity had not been sufficiently
proven and found Wilfredo guilty of parricide with the aggravating
SC of Spain in People v. Formigones: In order that this exempting circumstance circumstances of dwelling and habitual intoxication and sentencing him to
may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete suffer the penalty of death.
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the accused be
ISSUE/s:
deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts
1. (the topic) WoN the trial court erred in not considering the exempting
without the least discernment. Formigones established 2 distinguishable tests:
circumstance of insanity interposed by the accused-appellant – NO
(a) the test of cognition – “complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
2. WoN the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of
the [criminal] act,” and (b) the test of volition – “or that there be a total
intoxication and dwelling – YES
deprivation of freedom of the will.” But our caselaw shows common reliance
on the test of cognition, rather than on a test relating to “freedom of the will”.
RULING: SC AFFIRMED the decision with MODIFICATION (no longer took into
account the aggravating circumstances). Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the
FACTS: penalty of reclusion perpetua.
1. Wilfredo was living in his parents’ house in Pangasinan. His sisters, Elvira
and Emelinda, came to the house because their father, Bernardo, RATIO:
complained that Wilfredo caused trouble whenever he was drunk. They 1. In order to be considered exempt from criminal liability, the accused
planned to send Wilfredo in another house or sleeping quarters. Wilfredo pleading insanity must prove that he was completely deprived of reason
showed up, red-faced (he appeared drunk according to his sisters). After a when he killed his father. There is nothing either in the report of Dr. Gerona
while, Wilfredo followed his father to his room with 2 kitchen knives and or in his testimony that show that accused-appellant was completely without
stabbed him 10 times. Emelinda and Elvira witnessed the stabbing and reason on the night when he killed his father because the latter wanted him
heard Wilfredo say “Pinapalayas mo ako!”. Elvira also suffered injuries to leave the house. Although he said that in his opinion that Wilfredo was
from stab wounds when he tried to stop Wilfredo. Only when Wilfredo left schizophrenic when he committed the crime, he was later less certain when
that they were able to rush Bernardo to the hospital. By then, their father questioned by the trial judge and admitted that Wilfredo was mentally well
was already dead. at least after his discharge from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center and for
2. Wilfredo was accused of parricide. The Information stated, “with intent to some time until he was confined at the mental hospital after the commission
kill and with treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
Page 1 of 2

 of the crime in this case.
2. The burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Wilfredo was insane immediately before the commission of the crime or
at the very moment of its execution. Wilfredo failed to discharge this
burden. His evidence merely consisted of the testimony of his own mother
that he was confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center in 1988 for the
treatment of his addiction to gasoline, not for schizophrenia, and that he was
also brought to the Baguio General Hospital for check- up. The testimony of
Dr. Gerona III is inconclusive as to whether accused-appellant was insane at
the time immediately preceding or at the very moment of the killing.
3. Re the aggravating circumstances: Every aggravating circumstance must be
proven by the prosecution as fully as the crime itself and any doubt as to its
existence must be resolved in favor of the accused. Record does not show
that he is a habitual and excessive drinker or that he intentionally got drunk
in order to commit the crime. The mother of Wilfredo also denied this
allegation. The prosecution failed to prove that it was habitual or
intentional, but neither did the defense prove that, as a result of intoxication,
his will-power had been impaired such that he did not know what he was
doing to consider it a mitigating circumstance. Dwelling cannot be
considered aggravating because Wilfredo and his father were living in the
same house where the crime was committed. The rationale for this
aggravating circumstance is the violation by the offender of the sanctity of
the home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit a crime. This is not
present in this case.

Page 2 of 2