PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. POLICARPIO RAFANAN, JR G.R. No. L-54135 Feliciano, J. November 21, 1991

FACTS: 

On the eve of March 16, 1976 and upon the closing the store, Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. allegedly raped Estelita Ronaya, a househelper who was hired by the former’s mother named Ines Rafanan and who, at the time of criminal action, was fourteen years old. Ronaya, the complainant, narrates the sexual assault committed to her by Rafanan, the accused, that should she complained and resisted the proposed sexual intercourse and if anyone will know of the event, the accused threatened her life by pointing out his 1 ½ inch-size bolo on her throat. However, the said sexual assault was subsequently known by both the family of Rafanan and the mother of Ronaya. This prompted to an arraignment in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan wherein the accused was convicted of the crime of rape and sentenced reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱10,000.00 for moral damages. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty. On his appeal, Rafanan, now appellant, raised errors for the judgment decided by the lower court on the ground that at the time of the alleged rape, he was suffering insanity brought by schizophrenia. The appeal in the Trial Court was later suspended and the appellant was ordered to be confined in the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation and treatment until 1978. 

ISSUE: Whether the mental aberration of the appellant characterized by schizophrenia is a valid defense for insanity and can be qualified as exempting circumstance from criminal liability afforded by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Article 12. 

RULING: No. Schizophrenia, in this case, is not a valid defense for insanity to be qualified as an exempting circumstance to criminal liabilities because the said illness does not completely deprive the offender of a crime of his consciousness of his acts. To understand insanity in the context provided by the Revised Penal Code, Article 12, Judge Guevarra on his commentary cited the ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain against a similar case, People v. Formigiones, where it is held that

In order that insanity as an exempting circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.

In the case at bar, the fact that appellant Rafanan threatened complainant Ronaya with death should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him, indicates, to the mind of the Court, that Rafanan was aware of the reprehensible moral quality of that assault. Hence, Rafanan is not absolutely deprived by his intelligence or freedom of will. In a similar case People v. Puno, schizophrenia can be credited to as a mitigating circumstance defined by Article 13, par. 9 of the Revised Penal Code which states

Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

Though it is indeed a mitigating circumstance, Article 63 of the same Code shall remain to apply,

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

Therefore, Rafanan is still guilty of the crime of rape sentenced with reclusion perpetua and charged with fine for moral damages which is then increased to ₱30,000.00.