You are on page 1of 3

Case: People vs Banez (January 20, 1999)

Facts:
Wilfredo Banez, accused-appllant was living with his father in Pangasinan.
His father, Bernardo P. Baez, complained to Elvira and Emelinda Banez that
accused-appellant made trouble whenever he was drunk. The elder Baez wanted
to put up accused-appellant in another house.
In the evening of August 14, 1994, Elvira and her sister Emelinda discussed
with their father the latters plan for accused-appellant. After a while, when her
father went to his room, accused-appellant, who looked drunk because he was
red in the face, ran to the kitchen and got two (2) knives and then went inside
their fathers room. Elvira went inside the room, she saw accused-appellant
stabbing her father saying, Pinalalayas mo ako!. Elvira said she tried to stop
accused-appellant from inflicting further injuries on her father. But as Elvira tried to
take the knives from accused-appellant, the latter lunged at her and stabbed her,
hitting her on the right hand, forearm, and buttock. Emelinda tried to stop accusedappellant by throwing a piece of wood at him, but accused-appellant turned to
Emelinda. Emelinda was so frightened she ran away from the house and was chased
by the accused-appenllant. Elvira locked herself inside her fathers house and
stayed there until three (3) helpers from their poultry farm and their maid arrived.
She asked them for help to take her father to the hospital, but accused-appellant
came back and threatened them with harm. It was only much later, after accusedappellant had left again, that she was finally able to get help to take her father
hospital. By then, however, her father was already dead.
Elvira stated that accused-appellant had been staying in their fathers house
for four (4) years after accused-appellant separated from his wife; that in 1988
accused-appellant was confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center in Taguig,
Metro Manila for addiction to gasoline; that he had been discharged from the same
a long time ago, although she could not remember the year he was discharged; that
accused-appellant had not shown any indication that he was crazy although he was
also treated at the Baguio General Hospital for addiction to gasoline.
The autopsy report showed that the victim suffered 10 stab wounds on
various parts of his body.
A plea of insanity was made by the defense in behalf of accused-appellant.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not the accused-appellant should have been held exempt from
criminal liability because he suffering from schizophrenia when he killed his
father.

(2) Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of parricide with the


aggravating circumstances of dwelling and habitual intoxication
Ruling:
The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance. Like the
justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden is on the defense to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was insane immediately before
the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution.
(1) In this case, accused-appellant must thus prove that he was completely
deprived of reason when he killed his father in order to be considered exempt
from criminal liability. However, this has not been shown in this case. The
evidence shows that accused-appellant had a motive for killing his father.
The latter wanted to put him up in another house because accused-appellant
made trouble whenever he was drunk. His sister Elvira testified that accusedappellant created trouble whenever he was drunk and that was the reason
she (Elvira) and Emelinda were in their fathers house because their father
did not want accused-appellant to stay there anymore. It was entirely
possible that he killed his father out of resentment and that he only suffered
a mental breakdown because of emotional stress arising from the incident.
That was the reason he was found suffering from schizophrenia when taken
to the National Center for Mental Health on September 3, 1994.
(2) Dwelling cannot be considered aggravating because the accused-appellant
and his father were living in the same house where the crime was committed.
The rationale for considering dwelling an 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 reason is absent in this case.
Assuming that accused-appellant was drunk at the time he killed his father,
nonetheless, the record does not show that he is a habitual and excessive
drinker or that he intentionally got drunk on August 14, 1994 in order to
commit the crime. In the absence of clear and positive proof that intoxication
was habitual or intentional on the part of accused-appellant, it is improper to
consider the same as an aggravating circumstance. 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.
Neither can intoxication be considered mitigating in this case because there
is no showing that accused-appellant was so drunk that his will-power was
impaired or that he could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. The
result is that accused-appellants intoxication cannot be considered as either
aggravating or mitigating: 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.