THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABELARDO FORMIGONES, defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-3246 November 29, 1950

TOPIC:  Prescribed but undeserved penalties. (Art. 5, RPC)

GIST:

One afternoon, Abelardo killed his wife Julia with a  bolo, then carried her to the living room and lay down beside her. They were found like this by people his daughter, Irene, called, who witnessed the stabbing. He was found guilty of homicide. They appealed to be reconsidered on the ground of Abelardo's imbecility. 

SC found him not imbecile, merely feeble-minded. He was still sentenced to reclusion perpetua with 2 mitigating circumstances.

RATIONALE:

When an excessive penalty is imposed, the strict application of which is inevitable and which, under the law, must be sustained, the court resorts to e discretional power conferred by the law. Proper petition be filed with the executive branch of the Government in order that the latter, if it be deemed proper in the exercise of the prerogative vested in it by the sovereign power, may reduce the penalty to that of the next lower. 

-----------------------------

FACTS:

1. On December 28, 1946 Abelardo Formigones, without any previous quarrel or provocation, took his bolo from the wall of the house and stabbed his wife, Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right lung and causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death not long thereafter.

2. Having done so, he then carried his wife to the living room and lay down beside her. This was how he was found by the people summoned by his eldest daughter, Irene, who witnessed the stabbing. 

3.  He pleaded guilty, citing jealousy as his motive for he believed his wife was being intimate with his brother, Zacaria. 

4. Accused was found guilty of parricide by CFI Camarines Sur with a sentence of reclusion Perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P2,000.

5. An appeal was filed on the grounds that he is an imbecile citing instances where he acted under such an impression during his preventive imprisonment.

ISSUE:

1. WoN the defendant is an imbecile and can be exempt from criminal liability.

2. WoN the questioned imbecilic nature of the defendant can affect his punishment.

RULING:

1. NO,  Abelardo is not an imbecile.  In order to be exempt by imbecility by virtue of Art. 12, (1) it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the least discernment; that there be a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.  

Evidenced by his previous sixteen years of sanity in his marriage, and capability to work on their farm, and lead their family.  He was just feeble-minded and this fact was sympathized by the court.

The strange behaviour of the accused during his confinement may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. He could distinguish right from wrong.

Since he is not an imbecile, he is not exempted from criminal liability.

2. NO, he was still charged with reclusion perpetua. However, he was afforded with 2 mitigating circumstances:

Art. 13 , par. 8: "suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings" or  Art. 13, par. 9. "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of this will-power." and

Art. 13, par. 6— that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

The accused evidently killed his wife in a fit of jealousy.  Zacarias not only frequented said house but also used to sleep there nights. All this may have aroused and even partly confirmed the suspicions of Abelardo, at least to his way of thinking. 

Thus, he was jsut over-powered by his emotions and not imbecility.

The lower court's decision is affirmed with the modification that the appellant will be credited with one-half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone. 

SC ruling: Guilty of parricide, with the recommendation that this case be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive who, in his discretion may reduce the penalty to that next lower to reclusion perpetua to death or otherwise apply executive clemency in the manner he sees fit. 

-----------------------------

ADDITIONAL INFO:

Revised Penal Code:

ARTICLE 5. Duty of the Court in Connection with Acts Which Should Be Repressed but Which are Not Covered by the Law, and in Cases of Excessive Penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.

In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.

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.

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.