People v.

Nunez
Facts:
Accused Michael Nunez was able to lure the victims Joseph Rivera and Neil Patrick
Quillosa to go with him on the pretext that he will pay the proceeds of the sale of the
gun of Rivera’s father. They were brought to a nipa house in Dampalit, Malabon.
While waiting for a certain Ka Tony, Joseph and Neil Patrick were blindfolded and their
respective hands and feet were bounded by a wire and rope.
Then accused Nunez played a tape demanding 3 million pesos from Joseph’s parents
as ransom for the former. Thereafter, Nunez brought the two children by the river and
dragged Neil by the neck towards the middle of the river and left him there to drown.
Joseph was able to escape while in the care of the accused-appellant. Joseph was
fetched by his grandmother and father then they proceeded to the Malabon Police
Station and reported the Kidnapping.
Neil Patrick was found dead and the cause of his death was asphyxia due to
strangulation.
Accused-appellant denied the accusation against him.
Accused-Appellant and accused Michael Nunez was convicted of the complex crime of
Kidnapping with Murder and was sentenced each to suffer penalty of reclusion perpetua
and also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victims for actual and moral damages.
Accused filed an appeal claiming that the court erred in not finding the accused-
appellant’s low level of intelligence/state of imbecility exempt him from any criminal
liability, advancing that during his testimony, it revealed that he has the mental age of
between 6 to 10 years of age. To show his imbecility, he cited his act of cutting grass
when he should be guarding Joseph. Thus, he should be exempted from criminal
liability under the Revised Penal Code. And assuming that he is criminally liable, the
trial court should have been proceeded against him under the Child and Youth Welfare
Code.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF IMBECILITY
HELD: Appellant-accused is not entitled to the exempting circumstance of imbecility.
As held in the case of People v. Formigones, “feeblemindedness is not exempting,
because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile or an insane
cannot.” The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved.
Here, accused-appellant’s act of cutting grass rather than guarding the victim is hardly
indicative of imbecility. It is more of negligence but not childishness or even that of
deprives of reason or discernment and freedom of the will.
Decision of Court in Crim. Case No. 12778-MN is affirmed. In Crim. Case No. 12779-
MN, the decision is modified, accused appellant is convicted of the crime of Homicide
and sentenced to suffer penalty of imprisonment from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years of
prision mayor maximum as minimum up to 18 years, 6 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal maximum as maximum.