4 People Vs Pambid G.R. No. 124453. March 15, 2000

 

G.R. No. 124453. March 15, 2000 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  plaintif-appellee, vs. JOSEPH PAMBID  !ORNELIO, accused-appellant .

FA!TS" On January 24 1996, by virtue of Article 335 of the Revised Penal ode, the Re!ional  "rial  "rial ourt rruled uled that Jose#h Jose#h Pa$bid %as !uilty beyond reasonable reasonable doubt doubt for t%o counts of ra#e of &arycon 'elvie (refaldia) Accused*a##ellant %as sentenced to su+er the #enalty of Reclusion Per#etua %ith all the accessory #enalties of the la% and to inde$nify the co$#lainant, the su$ of P5, ) #lus costs for each count of ra#e) -o%ever, accused*a##ellant .led an a##eal fro$ the R"/s decision on the follo%in! basis0 1) At so$ so$e e #oint, the the victi$ stated stated in her her testi$ony testi$ony,, that she %as %as only .n!ered) 2) "he $other of the accused accused clai$ed that her son %as not in her her house but in the house of his father instead, %hen the .rst incident of ra#e alle!edly ha##ened) 3) "he #arents #arents of the accused contended contended that that their son son is ee$#t ee$#t fro$ fro$ cri$inal liability by reason of insanity s#eci.cally su+erin! fro$ schio#hrenia and $ild $ental retardation) 4) "he trial court erred erred in its conviction conviction of the the accused*a##ellant accused*a##ellant %hile %hile there there %as  ust one 1 infor$ation infor$ation .led a!ainst hi$) hi$)

ISS#E" •

•

7hether or not accused*a##ellant/s clai$ of insanity ee$#ts hi$ fro$ cri$inal liability 7hether or not the R" erred in the accused*a##ellant/s conviction for t%o counts of ra#e

R#LING" No. "he bare testi$ony of the accused*a##ellant/s #arents that he had su+ered insanity %as inade8uate to #rove that %hen he ra#ed the victi$ he %as co$#letely de#rived of reason) Article 12 1 of the Revised Penal ode #rovides that an i$becile or insane #erson is ee$#t fro$ cri$inal liability, unless he has acted durin! a lucid interval, the #resu$#tion, under Art)  of the ivil ode, is that every $an is sane) Anyone %ho #leads the ee$#tin! circu$stance of insanity bears the burden of #rovin! it, %hich he failed to dischar!e) -ence, by the totality of  the accused*a##ellant/s accused*a##ellant/s act as described by the victi$, it sho%ed that he %as fully conscious and a%are of %hat he %as doin!)  $  $%&. %&. "he Re!ional "rial ourt, in its decision, failed to consider, that accused* a##ellant could not obected validity ofdoes the infor$ation or raise issue of du#licity of have o+enses since to thethe infor$ation not char!e hi$ %iththe $ore

 

than one o+ense or occasion of ra#e) "hus, althou!h it %as sho%n that accused* a##ellant ra#ed the victi$ on t%o occasions, nonetheless, he can be convicted for one count of ra#e only)

'HEREFORE, the R"/s decision is :;" A: