This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Geraldine Damaso Valera Brgy. 28, St. Joseph Laoag City
RE: Robbery with Homicide against Jerome Mamaril
Dear Ms. Valera: This is in response to your query and to address your apprehension on the respondent’s defense of insanity and the latter’s alibi based on his counter-affidavit. In your complaint-affidavit and also from the affidavit of your witnesses, it was clear that all of you were present during the robbery in your bakery and grocery on May 20, 2003. Although it wasn’t stated in said affidavits that Jerome Mamaril was acting in his normal self, it could be gleaned my interview with you and your witnesses the fact that he was sane and his acts could not be that of an insane person. When the accused announced a “hold up” he knows what he was asking and doing when he ordered your husband Dante Valera to put the money in the bag and the rest of you to be on your knees. When the money was placed in the bag, you have seen him shot your husband and Jenny Manuel saw him rode on his silver owner type jeep and sped away. The questions now that has to be addressed are the following: a) Whether Jerome Mamaril committed the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide; b) Whether Jerome Mamaril was insane on the day of the commission of the crime; and c) Assuming for the sake of argument that the latter was insane, can he be held liable to answer for the crime of robbery with homicide. In this regard, I am of the following opinion: A. The Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide was committed based on the following: Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code specifically states:
277 SCRA 67 ). the crime of homicide shall have been committed. in the absence of proof to the contrary. Salazar. when by reason or on occasion of the robbery. your establishment was robbed by the accused and after which said accused shot your husband Dante Valera which caused the latter’s untimely demise. may be overcome by evidence of insanity. under Art. 185849. and 4. there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. ” (Emphasis Supplied) The following elements must be established for a conviction in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide: 1. Paul Alipio. 800. the Court has established a more stringent standard for insanity to be an exempting circumstance. 185285. which.R. It is improper to assume the contrary. Based on the facts you’ve given. or subsequent to the robbery (People vs. even if the killing is prior to. 2/4 . homicide is committed. 2010. There. this I have to say: Article 800 of the Civil Code states: “Art. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. October 5. 12(1) of the RPC. 294. (People v.) Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a direct relation. 2. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence or intimidation of any person shall suffer: (1)The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death. between the robbery and the killing. exempts a person from criminal liability. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. the accused is deprived of reason or there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of the will. concurrent with. x x x” The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind. B. an intimate connection. Esoy. 3. however. this fact alone supports the charged of robbery with homicide. The property taken belongs to another. 2009 citing People v. No. With regards to the accused’s defense of insanity in a bid to escape from criminal liability. April 7. No.R. G. Formigones. or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind.“Art. The taking is with intent to gain. This presumption. The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof. G. it was held that. In People of the Philippines vs. that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. for insanity to be appreciated in favor of the accused. that is.
to ensure the consummation of his terrible deed. you are positive about his identity. Such positive identification could prevail over the negative and self-serving denial of Mamaril. G. The fact that he fled away after he was able to take the money and shot Dante Valera would only show that he fully understood that he committed a crime for which he could be held liable. G. April 7.R. Esoy. No. it was not physically impossible for accused to be in the scene of the crime. On the other hand.R. The distance between the scene of the crime and the residence of Jerome Mamaril is not that far and with the use of the latter’s motor vehicle it could be reached within a short period of time that is within 15-20 minutes. C. it is clear that Jerome Mamaril could be held liable for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Edwin Isla y Rossell. you will be entitled to indemnity for the death of your husband and other 3/4 . Also. Accused cannot avoid liability by way of his defenses. by pretending to be a buyer and by resorting to threats and violence. 2012. x x x” Accused Jerome Mamaril exactly knew that what he was doing was evil so much so that he had to employ treachery. 185849. an accused must prove (1) that he was present at another place at the time the crime was perpetrated. however. His defense could still fails considering that he was not insane during the commission of the acts charged. such fact does not alter the situation. the Court says: “ Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove (People v. November 21. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. March 20. It follows then that if Jerome Mamaril will be found guilty of the crime charged. 582 SCRA 161. To establish alibi.R. his medical record of previous confinement in asylum for those mentally ill does not conclude that he was not sane at the time of the commission of the crime.In the recent decision of the Supreme court in People of the Philippines v. The testimony or proof of an accused’s insanity must. 175829. 2010). relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. Thus. 2009. No. Physical impossibility “refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed. and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. as well as the facility of access between the two places.” (People v. G. If Jerome Mamaril had become insane after the commission of the crime. 170). 199875. As shown by the foregoing. Guillera. No.
therefore. As your lawyer. If you have further query. unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval shall be exempt from criminal liability.” I should however. emphasize at this juncture that while existing laws and jurisprudence may support your action. may not prove its earlier defense and that he should not be held liable pursuant to the express provision of Article 12 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that an imbecile or an insane person. Very truly yours.award of damages for under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code – “A person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. I recommend that we proceed with the criminal suit against Jerome Mamaril. there is no reason why the accused on its part. Monet 4/4 . please do not hesitate to call or visit me.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?