473 Phil. 637
PER CURIAM:
“That on or about the 6th day of January, 2000, in the City of Talisay, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with an improvised knife, with intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one RAMY TAMAYO, thus causing injuries in the vital parts of the body of the latter which caused his instantaneous death.Upon his arraignment on May 24, 2000,[3] appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.
“That accused RANDY BELONIO y LANDAS is a recidivist for having been convicted by final judgment of 4 years, two (2) months, one day to six years in Crim. Case 94-16609 entitled: People of the Philippines vs. Randy Belonio y Landas for Homicide.” [2]
“Jennifer Carampatana testified that on January 6, 2000, her grandmother was buried and there was a wake in their house at Brgy. Zone 14 in the evening. Her first cousin, the late Ramy Tamayo, also called Ramon Tamayo, arrived in their house at about 10:00 P.M. together with his wife.In his Brief,[6] Randy Belonio adopted the above findings of the trial court and the prosecution. However, he raises the defense of insanity, an exempting circumstance, and for such purpose, depends on the expert assessment of his witness, Dr. Antonio Gauzon, who certified thus:
“Jennifer invited Ramy to talk outside of their house. Before they could sit on a nearby bench, Ramy decided to buy cigarettes from a store only a few meters away. The store was furnished with a small opening for the store- keeper to attend to the customers and Ramy was occupying that space in front of the opening to pay when the accused Randy Belonio arrived. Randy tried to force his way in front of the opening and as a consequence, he bumped on Ramy. Jennifer saw that Randy gave Ramy a long and hard look.
“Jennifer said that he and Ramy sat and talked on the bench. The accused came over and sat on the other end of the bench. Then the accused asked Ramy for the latter’s cigarette lighter. The accused asked Ramy from what place did he come from and why was he there. Ramy answered the accused in a normal manner.
“The accused left but after a few minutes he returned, Jennifer, who was facing the direction of the approaching accused, saw him and noticed that he was wearing long sleeves. Ramy Tamayo could not see the accused as he was facing sideways to Jennifer. Without saying a word and without warning, the accused delivered a stabbing blow with a dagger which was concealed in his hand. Ramy was hit on the right chest, Jennifer stood up and ran towards her house shouting for help. There at the gate of the fence of her house, she heard another thudding sound of a stabbing blow. When Jennifer entered her house, she announced that Ramy was stabbed.
“Jennifer and her relatives rushed out of the house. Jennifer saw the accused running away towards the back of the barangay hall. The Tanods who came over failed to find the accused. Then when the Barangay Captain and the policemen arrived, Jennifer informed them of the direction towards which the accused fled. The accused was arrested from one (1) of the houses near the barangay hall where he took refuge.
“Dr. Raul V. Pama, Jr. was the acting City Health Officer of Talisay City on January 6, 2000. He conducted an autopsy on the remains of Ramy Tamayo and listed his findings in a necropsy report which he prepared. These findings are as follows:
- ‘Stabbed wound, 1.7 cm. in length, sutured sharp on one (1) and (inferior portion) and blunt on the other end (superior portion) located at the 4th intercostal space;
‘Dr. Pama explained that the wound is just above the left nipple and it penetrated downward hitting the left side on the heart;- ‘Stabbed wound at the sternal. The wound is situated just above the site of the first wound.’
‘The first wound was fatal as it damaged the heart.’”[5]
“This is an individual who is suffering from (Schizophrenia), Chronic Undifferentiated and probably triggered by (s)ubstance abuse of Shabu and Marijuana.The RTC was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of Murder and that he had full control of his mental faculties. It held that the testimony of Dr. Ester Regina Servando was more weighty and credible than that of Dr. Gauzon.[8]
“Recommending treatment and rehabilitation in a mental institution like the National Center for Mental (H)ealth in Mandaluyong City or treatment in the psychiatric unit of the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Regional Hospital in Bacolod City and later rehabilitation in the Negros (O)ccidental Mental Health Center at Paglaum Village, Bacolod City.”[7]
“FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Randy Belonio y Landas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the Information, as Principal by Direct (Participation) with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of recidivism. There are no other aggravating circumstances nor is there any mitigating circumstance. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.Hence this automatic review.
“The accused is held civilly liable to pay the heirs of Randy Tamayo the following amounts:“1. The sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
“2. The sum of P3,629.70 as reimbursement for hospital expenses;
“3. The sum of P940,716.00 as compensatory damages; and
“4. The sum of P100,000.00 in favor of Mrs. Jinky Tamayo as moral damages.”[9]
“The trial court seriously erred in not appreciating the exempting circumstance of insanity pursuant to Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended favoring the accused-appellant.”[10]In support of his appeal, appellant argues that he was not in his right and normal frame of mind when the killing took place. He avers that no normal person would ever bump another person, give the latter a hard look and eventually stab him to death. He adds that he and the victim did not know each other at that time.[11]
“ATTY. JACILDO: | ||
Q. | Now, from this Medical Certificate, Doctor, there is specifically mentioned here that the subject here ‘was found to be incoherent and irrelevant and disoriented as to time, person and place, and that there was plight of ideas and adjustment, as well as insights.’ Will you kindly explain this to this Honorable Court? | |
A. | What meant there is that, when you talk to the individual, sometimes you get answers right, sometimes it is wrong. That is when you say that he is incoherent. When you say irrelevant, that pertain to the question. Now, as far as dates, he could not remember the date. As far (as) the place, he could not recall the place when he was in my office. And some of the persons that were with him, he could not identify them. Now, when I say that there was plight of ideas, that (was) when he was talking. As a matter of fact, I gave an example, when I asked a question – when I asked him about the first killing incident and his answer was, ‘face to face kami, simbahan namon kag inagaw namon ang baril’ because of warship. That is only one, because there were others that you could not understand what he was talking about whether you have to rely only on other things. And sometimes, he would talk on things which are not there. That means he was hallucinating. Now, judgment is usually poor. Because, when I asked him of what he will do regarding the case, he would just say that, ‘Ti, amo na ya.’ And he said, ‘Ano kamo da ya?’ kay ang warship. So, I was asking him about the values of what he was doing and he could not give me that answer. And he does not know what he was doing. That means that there was no reality testing. He does not know what is the real fantasy. | |
x x x x x x x x x | ||
Q. | Now in your opinion as an expert in terms of Psychiatry, about how long has the subject, Randy Belonio, been suffering from his mental disorder that you mentioned in your Medical Certificate? | |
A. | Since childhood. If you would notice, I put there in the history that his father was medically disabled when he was ten (10) years old, and the mother was only a fish vendor and there were, I think, eight (8) to ten (10) in the family and with a meager income and have to (fend) for themselves. And in a very young age of ten (10), the parents had the attitude of ‘Bahala na ang kabata-an’. That means, they have to take care of themselves. At age 13, he was brought by the relative to Manila, and although he was incoherent, you can get from his answer by mentioning so many places, (like) Manila, Pasay, Caloocan, Novaliches, MRT, Cubao. That means, at age 13, he was already around these areas (f)ending for himself. And the (s)treet (u)rchins, you know for a fact, that they are influenced by drugs. So, by that time, with that dysfunctional family, and without any family to take care of himself, he was not doing what the society expects him to do. So that they have dysfunctional family and with dysfunctional relatives. So, the value system was really poor. So that the thinking process of this individual was not developed to what the society expects him to be. So, it started at that time. So, when he was taking shabu, it triggered every tissue that the symptoms came out. That’s why, he became suspicious, (he) became irritable and anybody who would try to not befriend him and tried to be angry with him, he would immediately suspect that something would happen to him in which he would react by defending himself, and probably by killing. This individual had, actually, committed, say, killing. I would not say murder because that’s your term, but he had killed already three (3) persons in different years. So, he does not already know what he was doing because he was psychotic, which in your parlance is insane. | |
Q. | Now, Doctor, on January 6, 2000, and even prior to this date, what you are trying to say is that, this subject, Randy Belonio, was already suffering from schizophrenia? | |
A. | Yes.”[21] |
“FISCAL AGRAVIADOR: | ||
Q. | Can you please read for the record this (r)esult which consist only of one (1) sentence? | |
A. | Psychiatric Evaluation Result. Base(d) on history, mental status examination, and psychological examination, patient was noted to be evasive, suspicious, and manipulative but no psychotic features were observed upon evaluation. x x x. | |
Q. | So, let us first, may I ask, what do you me(a)n by ‘patient was noted to be evasive, suspicious, and manipulative’? | |
A. | Actually, during the psychological examination, we have to give series of questions. And then the patient (does) not answer directly to our question. He would go around the bush. And then, after that, we also found out during the result of the psychological examination that the same pattern was noted. | |
Q. | Does this mean that he was totally capable of being manipulative or evasive? | |
A. | Yes. | |
Q. | He did it intentionally? | |
A. | Yes. | |
Q. | With the knowledge that he knew the answer but does not want to give the answer? | |
A. | Yes. | |
Q. | Meaning to say, that he has full control of his mental faculties that time? | |
A. | Yes. | |
Q. | Because there was an intention to be manipulative and there was an intention to be evasive because he was suspicious? | |
A. | Yes. | |
Q. | When you said that there was no psychotic features(,) x x x (w)hat does this mean? | |
A. | When you say psychosis, those are compose[d] of symptoms such as delusion and hallucination that are being extracted from the patient or being displayed by the patient. However, during the examination, the symptom or the patient’s answers are not enough to put him to a criteria of psychosis because the delusion and the hallucination as well as the thought process, the thought contents must be concretized enough in order for us to determine to diagnose that this patient is actually suffering from psychosis. | |
Q. | So, subjected to your examination, this patient did not come up to the level where he could be diagnosed as having delusion and hallucinations? | |
A. | Leading to psychotic features. | |
Q. | So, that is the meaning of not having psychotic features? | |
A. | Yes.”[24] |
“1. It could not be gainsaid that Dr. Servando is a disinterested and unbiased witness. She does not know the accused and she is not known to the accused. She will not be benefited if the Court upholds her findings and she had no reason to testify falsely. On the other hand, Dr. Gauzon was admittedly paid for his services, hence, it could not be truly said that he is an impartial and disinterested witness. If his findings (are) upheld, the benefit to the practice of his profession is enormous;Unlike in other jurisdictions, Philippine courts have established a more stringent criterion for the acceptance of insanity as an exempting circumstance. In our jurisdiction, mere abnormality of the mental faculties is not enough; there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
“2. As a government official, Dr. Servando has the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duty. No such presumption arises in favor of Dr. Gauzon;
“3. The findings of Dr. Servando that the accused is evasive and manipulative is supported by the Court’s own observation. x x x.x x x x x x x x x
“4. The conclusion of Dr. Gauzon is principally based on his interview with the accused and the members of the accused’s family. It was the members of the accused’s family, the sister of the accused who informed Dr. Gauzon that at the age of 13, the accused began to use drugs. The information that the family of the accused was impoverished; that the accused spent his adolescence in Metro-Manila; that the accused was a neglected child were all supplied by the kins of the accused who were not presented as witnesses. There was no showing that Dr. Gauzon took precautionary steps to validate the information. On the other hand, Dr. Servando also conducted interview of the accused and his accompanying relatives including the BJMP guard who escorted him. In addition, Dr. Servando conducted a series of written tests which are tailored to determine the mental capacity of a person. The result of the written tests confirms the observation of Dr. Servando in the interview that the accused is evasive and manipulative.”[26]
“An accused invoking the insanity defense pleads not guilty by reason thereof. He admits committing the crime but claims that he is not guilty because he was insane at the time of its commission. Hence, the accused is tried on the issue of sanity alone and if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial on the issue of guilt as he had already admitted committing the crime. x x x.”[28]Inasmuch as Belonio failed to present convincing evidence to establish his alleged insanity at the time he stabbed Tamayo, we are constrained to affirm his conviction.
“Q. What did you do there? | ||
A. | While we were conversing at that bench, after a short while, or five (5) minutes, Randy Belonio came and he asked to light his cigarette because Ramy was smoking at that time. He was allowed by Ramy to light his cigarette. | |
Q. | Was there any conversation between Ramy Tamayo and Randy Belonio aside from asking lighting of cigarette? | |
A. | While asking to light the cigarette, Randy inquired from Ramy why he was there, Ramy told him that he is attending the wake of his grandmother. Further, Randy asked him where he came from? And Ramy answered that he is from Hda. Bubog. | |
Q. | After that what did Randy Belonio do if he did anything? | |
A. | He (sat) for a while, and a little while after that, he took a look at Ramy. After some minutes, he went out. | |
Q. | And after few minutes was there any incident happened? | |
A. | After three (3) minutes Randy went back. He just walk normally, and when he was near Ramy he stabbed Ramy hitting on the chest and while the weapon was still on the breast of Ramy I stood up and ran away. | |
Q. | From what direction did Randy came when he approach you? | |
A. | He came from their house because their house is near our house. | |
Q. | In relation to you, where is this house located? | |
A. | Witness indicating that he came from her side, where the house is situated. | |
Q. | And which side did you sit, the side near the direction of the house of Randy Belonio or far from the house of Belonio? | |
A. | The other side. | |
COURT: | ||
It was Ramy who was sitting near the house of Ramy? | ||
WITNESS: | ||
Yes, sir. | ||
APP AGRAVIADOR: | ||
Q. | And what was the position of Ramy Tamayo when he was suddenly stab. | |
A. | He was sitting in this manner. | |
COURT INTERPRETER: | ||
Witness illustrating by crossing her legs over the other legs and move slightly her body was in side way. | ||
APP AGRAVIADOR: | ||
Q. | That means that Ramy Tamayo did not see Randy Belonio who was coming from the house? | |
A. | Yes, Ma’am. | |
COURT: | ||
Let me interrupt. He was facing you? Ramy was facing you while you were facing the direction where the house of Randy Belonio, so that Ramy was facing on the other side? | ||
WITNESS: | ||
A. | Yes, sir. | |
COURT: | ||
Proceed. | ||
APP AGRAVIADOR: | ||
Q. | When Randy Belonio suddenly thrust the knife on the chest of Ramy Tamayo, did you see the reaction of Ramy Tamayo? | |
A. | He was not able to move. After that, I want to ran to the house. | |
APP AGRAVIADOR: | ||
Q. | When for the first time did you see the weapon used by Randy Belonio in taking the life of Ramy Tamayo? | |
A. | When he thrusted that knife. | |
COURT: | ||
Before or after he delivered the stabbing blow? | ||
A. | At the moment he delivered the stabbing blow, that was the first time I saw that knife. | |
APP AGRAVIADOR: | ||
Q. | When you saw Randy Belonio approaching Ramy Tamayo x x x, you did not see the knife? | |
A. | Because he was wearing long sleeve to cover his hand.”[31] |
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x (Gross Annual Income – Living Expenses) | ||
where: Life expectancy | = 2/3 (80 – the age of the deceased) | |
= 2/3 (80-24) x [(P200x365)-P36,500] | ||
=P1,362,545 |
“[W]e declared in the case of People vs. Villanueva that:Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.‘… when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000, as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Conversely, if the amount of actual damages proven exceeds P25,000, then temperate damages may no longer be awarded; actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial should instead be granted.’“The victim’s heirs should, thus, be awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.”[37]