Introduction

The determination of insanity of a party in a case is important in knowing his or her criminal responsibility. Mental illness may be an exempting or mitigating circumstance in criminal liability. The accused in a criminal action may avail this exempting or mitigating circumstance provided that it is proven that the party is really insane. The defense of insanity is an affirmative defense that exculpates the defendant from any criminal liability because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of his actions. Also, a plaintiff in a civil action for the recovery of damages and for the injury sustained who is proven to be insane may receive a bigger award from the court. It is an established fact that the determination of the insanity of a party in a case is of the essence that it is a basis of the extent of liability or responsibility whether it be criminal or civil in nature. Every defendant in a criminal action can invoke this defense of insanity to mitigate or exempt himself from criminal liability. Thus, the court should take necessary measures or utilize rules to determine whether the mental condition of an accused exempts from his criminal liability. Moreover, there are tests for insanity. It is also possible that a party is only malingering. Due to this, our courts should be very strict in considering the evidences presented by the party who claims to be insane to prove the same. The court should do their best to determine whether or not the party invoking the defense of insanity is insane. It is because the courts must serve justice and punish those who violate the law. Allowing an insanity defense is based on the theory that conviction and punishment are justified only if the defendant deserves them, and it would be unfair to punish someone who is so mentally disturbed that he lacks responsibility as a moral agent. The legal definition of insanity is very different from the psychiatric definitions of mental illness and should not be used interchangeably. There are several ways on how a person can excuse himself from a certain crime. A person who is charged with a crime, need to have a highly regarded criminal defense attorney to help him get through the case. Right after the accused seek counsel, the next step is to think of the defense that they must use on the court proceeding, to prove their innocence. There are various defenses that they can use. Some of it includes the presumption of innocence, establish an alibi, proclaim selfdefense and using insanity as a plea.

Insanity is a legal, not a medical definition. Therefore, mental illness and insanity are not synonymous: only some mental illness constitutes insanity. Insanity, however, includes not only mental illness but also mental deficiencies.

Can anyone just simply say that the accused is insane so that he can mitigate or even exempt his criminal liability? Are there procedures and tests to conclude if someone is really insane? How important is the determination of the insanity in the legal world? How accurate are these tests for insanity? What are the weights of the results of these tests? Are they really effective and conclusive? Body What is insanity? Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.[1]When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor.[2] In English, the word "sane" derives from the Latin adjective sanus meaning "healthy". The phrase "mens sana in corpore sano" is often translated to mean a "healthy mind in a healthy body". From this perspective, insanity can be considered as poor health of the mind, not necessarily of the brain as an organ (although that can affect mental health), but rather refers to defective function of mental processes such as reasoning. Another Latin phrase related to our current concept of sanity is "compos mentis" (lit. "of composed mind"), and a euphemistic term for insanity is "non compos mentis". In law, mens rea means having had criminal intent, or a guilty mind, when the act (actus reus) was committed. A more informal use of the term insanity is to denote something considered highly unique, passionate or extreme, including in a positive sense. A notable example has been the use of the phrase 'insanely great' in the launch of the Apple Macintosh, subsequently also used to describe one of its developers.[3][4] The term may also be used as an attempt to discredit or criticise particular ideas, beliefs, principals, desires, personal feelings, attitudes, or their proponents, such as in politics and religion. What is insanity as a defense?

The insanity defense is a defense that is used in the courts to say the defendant was not aware of what they were doing at the time of the crime. These instructions can be drawn from any of several rules used in the determination of mental illness. The final determination of mental illness rests solely on the judge who uses information drawn from the testimony of "expert" witnesses, usually professionals in the field of psychology. How can the condition of insanity be considered? What are these mental disorders? The condition of insanity cannot be considered clinically by the manifestation of one sign or symptom, but it is essential to appreciate the condition of the mind as a whole. Although certain behavior may be observed in certain types of insanity, they may also be observed in the clinically non-insane. 1.) Disorder of Cognition (Knowing) a.) Disorder in Perception: (1) Illusion a false interpretation of an external stimulus. It may be manifested with the sense of sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. (2) Hallucination An erroneous perception without external object of stimulus. b.) Disorder of Memory: (1) Dementia a form of insanity resulting from degeneration or disorder of the brain characterized by general mental weakness, forgetfulness, loss of coherence, and total inability to reason but not accompanied by delusion or uncontrollable impulse. Some types of Dementia: (a) Acute dementia a form of temporary dementia, occurring in young people and induced by conditions likely to produce that stae, like malnutrition, overwork, dissipation or too rapid growth. (b) Dementia Paralytica (General Paralysis of the Insane) degeneration of physical, intellectual and moral power leading to paralysis (c) Dementia Praecox (Schizophrenia) dementia of the adolescence and characterized by loss of memory. (d) Senile dementia Occuring in advanced age nad characterized by loss of memory, with childish and silly behavior and physical degeneration. (e) Toxic dementia characterized by weakness of mind or feeble cerebral activity resulting from continous administration or use of toxic chemicals. 2.) Amnesia (Loss of Memory) (a) Anterograde Amnesia Loss of memory of recent event. (b) Retrograde Amnesia Loss of memory of past events and observed in trauma of the head. c.) Disorder of Content of Thought 1.) Delusion a false or erroneous belief in something which is not a fact. A person suffering from delusion is not always insane. If he can correct his wrong belief by later experiences, by logic or information from other sources, then such delusion is not a proof of insanity. Some types of delusion:

(a) Delusion of Grandeur (delirium of Grandeur, Megalomania or folie de grandeur) erroneous belief that he is in possession of great power, wealth, wisdom, physical strength, etc. It is not always a sign of insanity. A person may think he is a king and dresses and acts as such. (b.) Delusion of Persecution a false belief that one is being persecuted. A person may feel that he is being poisoned and prepares for his coming end. (c) delusion of reference one thinks that he is always the subject matter of conversation, news, speech or action although it is not a fact. (d) delusion of self-accusation a false belief to have committed a crime or hurt the feeling of others. (e) delusion of Infidelity a false belief derived from pathological jealousy that ones lover is unfaithful although she is chaste, and tries to assault her. (f) Nihilistic Delusion a false belief that there is no world, that one does not exist, and that hos body is dead. This condition may occur in involutional melanchiola. (g) delusion of Poverty- A false belief that one is financially ruined and that he has no money, is starving, sik or even dead. (h) delusion of Control afalse feeling that one is being controlled by other persons. (i) Hypochondriacal delusion a false feeling that one is suffering from an incurable disease, some parts of his body are not functioning, or that he is not physically capacitated to do a thing on account of the disease. (j) Delusion of Depression patient experiences feelings of uneasiness, worthlessness and futility. (k) delusion of Negation feeling that some parts of the body are missing. (2) Obsession thought and impulse which continually occur in the persons mind despite all his attempts to keep them out. It is an idea constantly obtruding on the consciousness in spite of efforts to drive them away from his mind. A person may lock the door of his bedroom and go to bed. While in bed he may get up to see if he has locked the door. He may go to bed again and again think and see whether the door is locked. He may repeat the act the whole night. d. Disorder on the Trend of Thought: (1) Mania A state of excitement accompanied by exaltation or a feeling of well- being which is out of harmony with the surrounding circumstances of the patient. The mind is hyperactive, with flight of ideas which may amount to incoherency. Delusion may be present, but it is usually fleeting in character. The increased mental activity also finds expression in increased muscular activity; the patient is restless and always occupied. His finer instincts are blunted; he becomes untidy with his clothing even to the extent of indecency. He is impatient, irritable, anatagonistic and violent if interfered with. He is sleepless but his physical health is not greatly affected. (2) Melancholia intense feeling of depression and misery which is unwarranted by his physical condition and external environment. He is absorbed by his miserable thought. Aural hallucination is common. Every patient suffering from melancholia is a potential suicide case.

The alternative conditrion of mania and melancholia is known as manic-depressive psychosis, hence called folie circulaire. In between attacks of mania and depression is a period of cessation of symptoms of psychosis known as lucid interval. Any person who committed a criminal act during lucid interval is criminally liable. 2. Disorder of emotion (feeling) a. exaltation feeling of unwarranted well-being and happiness. b. depression feeling of miserable thought, that a calamitous incident occurred in his life, something has gone wrong with his body functions and prefers to be quiet and in seclusion. c. Apathy Serious disregard of the surrounding environment. d. Phobia Excessive, irrational and uncontrollable fear of a perfectly natural situation or object. The fear of specific objects, situations, or places may develop as a result of an incident, while the fear of illness may start when a friend contracted an illness. Fear of death may develop when one nursed a dying patient and became morbidly convinced that he will in the future be in the same condition. 3. Disorder of Volition or conation (Doing): a. Impulsion or Impulse (Compulsion) Sudden and irresistible force compelling a person to the conscious performance of some action without motive or forethought. The person has no power to control it, however bad the consequence may be. Some types of Impulsion (Compulsion Neurosis) (1) Pyromania an irresistible impulse to set things afire. (2) Kleptomania an irresistible impulse to steal articles of not much value. (3) Mutilomania- an irresistible impulse to maim animals. (4) Dipsomania- an irresistible impulse to indulge in intoxication for a number of years with alcohol or drugs. Repeated intoxication for a number of years with alcohol or drugs which is voluntary is not dipsomania. One having power to refrain from the use of intoxicating liquor or drugs and who becomes intoxicated voluntarily is not a dipsomaniac. (5) Homicidal Impulse an irresistible inclination or impulse to commit homicide prompted usually by insane delusion either as a necessity of self-defense or avenging for justice, or as to the patient being the appointed instrument of a superman justice.

What are the consequences after the insanity of the accused has been determined? After the case, what happen usually is that the insane person must undergo psychiatric treatments. They are placed in a mental asylum for treatment. In cases that the insane person truly committed the crime but is not aware that he or she did it because of insanity, they are required to be held in a mental institution until they can no longer be a threat to anyone. Again, they can only be acquitted once a psychiatrist or a psychologist testifies his mental illness at the time of offense and a series of tests or mental evaluation.

. Why is legal insanity being used by many people as an excuse for a crime? This is because an insane person does not have the ability to think right and act right. An insane person does not know the law. The insane people do not even think of themselves or the other people. A person is said to be insane when they have severe mental disease. They are totally excused from the crime that they have committed once they are proven by certified medical personnel. Why is it that a legally insane person cannot be held responsible of his conduct? In any court proceeding, a legally insane person cannot be responsible of his conduct because as we have mentioned, they do not know that what they are doing at the time of conduct is right or wrong. A legally insane person cannot think logically, in this regard, he is acquitted of the crime When a defense of insanity is invoked, who has the burden ofp roof? When the presumption of innocence is used, it is the prosecution who has a bigger task in finding evidences and witnesses to prove that the accused committed the crime. In the court of law, any accused person is presumed innocent until they are proven to be guilty of the crime. When the accused establish an alibi, there must be al least a witness or evidence that you are not indeed around when the crime happened. In using selfdefense as an excuse, you must prove to the court that you were able to commit the crime out of the need to defend your life because you are in danger. What are the tests or rules in determining the insanity of the accused?

The MNaghten Rule

Drawn from British common law, the MNaghten rule has been extremely influential on U.S. insanity defense standards for the past two centuries. To this day, many states still employ some version or elements of the MNaghten rule in determining a defendants sanity. In 1843, Daniel MNaghten murdered the secretary of the Prime Minister of England in a failed attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself, believing that the prime minister was to blame for his lifes troubles. The trial court acquitted MNaghten by reason of insanity, and the House of Lords developed from there the MNaghten Rule, (1843) 10 C & F 200. The MNaghten rule state that a defendant will not be held

responsible for his actions if, due to his mental disease or defect, he did not know that his act would be wrong or did not understand the nature and quality of his actions. Criticisms of the MNaghten Rule has come from both legal and medical professions. Many criticize that the test is unsound in its view of human psychology. Psychologists have said the theory of partial insanity or monomania, that is that a person could be sane in all other respects and yet have a cognitive delusion, has also been exploded by the more modern theory of the integrated psyche. (Gerber 30). Additionally, the test is criticized for defining responsibility solely in terms of cognition. While cognitive symptoms may reveal disorder, they alone are not sufficient to give an adequate picture of such a disorder or determine responsibility. Also, it has been shown that individuals deemed insane by psychologists have possessed the ability to differentiate right from wrong.

Irresistible Impulse Test

Many jurisdictions later added a volitional element to the MNaghten cognitive test for insanity, creating the irresistible impulse test. Under the irresistible impulse test, a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if the defense establishes that, because of a mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct according to the law. The irresistible impulse test allows for a defendant to recognize that his conduct is wrong but excuses criminal liability where he is unable to control his actions due to some mental disease or defect. Many of the criticisms of the (IIT) center around the claim that the view of volition is so extremely narrow that it can be misleading. Just as the MNaghten Rule focused on cognition rather than the function of the person in an integrated fashion, the (IIT) abstracts the element of volition in a way that fails to assess a persons function in terms of an integrated personality. Additionally, it has been asserted that the concept at best has medical significance in only minor crimes resulting from obsessioncompulsion, and that seldom, if ever, can it be shown that this disorder results in the commission of a major crime (Winslade 11). Such a claim is subject to the objection that it cannot be conclusively proven. Interestingly, it has been shown by many psychiatric authorities that no homicidal or suicidal crime ever results from obsession-compulsion neurosis. Another criticism of this test is the difficulty of proving the irresistibility of the impulse, which the definition of the test requires. The jury has the final decision, and is faced with deciding when the impulse was irresistible and when it was merely not resisted, a task that psychiatrists suggest is impossible to perform. We are also able to argue that the test is one of volition. It is too narrow in that it fails to recognize mental illness characterized by broadening and reflection. (Gerber 42). The test is misleading in its suggestion that where a crime is committed as a result of emotional disorder due to insanity, it must be sudden and impulsive.

The Durham Rule

The MNaghten rule was used in the U.S. until the case of Durham v. United States. Lauded by the mental health community as progressive because it allowed the involvement of psychologists in the insanity determination, the Durham rule excused a defendant if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.[12] Generally seen as an overly lenient standard of legal insanity, the rule has since been explicitly rejected in 22 states and is only used in New Hampshire. The Durham Rule, also known as the Products Test, is based on the contention that insanity represents many personality factors, all of which may not be present in every case. (Jeffery 60) It was brought about by Judge David Bazelon in the case of Durham v. U.S. who rejected the MNaghten Rule and stated that the accused is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. The primary problem with this rule of course lies in its meaning. Again it is impossible for us to define mental disease or defect, and product does not give the jury a reliable standard by which to base a decision.

d. Currens Rule In order to make the accused not responsible for his act. It must be proven that at the time of committing the prohibited substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law which he has allegedly violated. Criticisms to the Currens Rule: Like the Durham Rule, a large number of the prison population will be considered not guilty by reason of insanity. a.) American Law Institute Rule: In 1955, The American Law Institute with the support of the American Bar Association, formulated the following rule of criminal responsibility: 1.) A person is not responsible for his criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks essential capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law; 2.) The term mental disease or defect does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct. Criticisms to the American Law Institute Rule: 1.) Some authorities, even psychiatrists, objected to the inclusion of item (b) of the rule. It has been pointed out that that such exclusionary division discriminates between the poor and the well-to-do offenders. The poor defendants cannot avail themselves of a more rigid and more searching inquiry into their mental state but merely superficial, one done by government physicians.

2.) It does not give the court a simple, helpful guide in their effort to decide whether the accused was insane at the time of his act. 3.) The phrase or to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law permits the defendant to find refuge in what is equivalent to the irresistible impulse test. Substantial Capacity Test which focuses on the reason and will of the accused. It states that at the time of the crime, as a result of some mental disease or defect, the accused lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongful of their conduct or conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. This test is disputable in the fact that it is not only impossible to prove capacity of reason or will, but to even test such abstracts seems absurd. Furthermore, the term substantial capacity lies question in that it is an abstract impossible to define. What is the legal importance of determination of the insanity of the accused? 1.) In the civil Code: a.) Insanity is a restriction on the capacity of a natural person to act: Art. 38, Civil Code Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements. b.) Insanity modifies or limits the capacity of a natural person to act: Art. 39, civil Code the following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, state of being a deaf-mute The consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court and in special laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion. c.) Insanity at the time of marriage of any or both parties is a ground for the annulment of marriage: Art. 85, Civil Code A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes; existing at the time of marriage: 10.) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife. 10.) a testator must be of sound mind at the time of execution of a will:

Art. 798, Civil code In order to make a will is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution.

Art. 799, civil Code to be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury, or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at that the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act. Art. 800, Civil Code the law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. e.) A witness to a will must be of sound mind: Art. 820, Civil Code any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution of a will. f.) Insanity of the testator is a ground for disallowance of a will: Art. 839, Civil Code The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: (2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will, at the time of its execution. g.) An insane cannot give consent to a contract: Art. 1327, Civil Code the following cannot give consent to a contract: (1) Unemancipated minors: (2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write. h.) The guardian or the insane himself, if there is no parent or guardian shall be held for damges due to his insanity: Art. 2180, Par. 3, Civil Code Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. Art. 2182, Civil code if the minor or insane person causing the damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. 2.) In the Revised Penal Code: a.) Insanity exempts a person from criminal liability: From criminal liability the following are exempt from criminal liability: 1.) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during lucid interval. b.) A person who becomes insane after final sentence:

Art. 79, Revised Penal code Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstances number 1 of article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provision of this Code. The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence. 2.) In the Rules of Court: A.) A guardian on the person of the insane must be appointed: Rule 92, Sec. 2, Rules of Court Meaning of word incompetent Under this rule, the word incompetent includes those who are of uncound mind, even though they have lucid intervals. Rule 93, Sec. 1, Rules of Court Who may petition for appointment of guardian for resident Any relative, friend, or other person on behalf of a resident minor or incompetent who has no parent or lawful guardian An officer of the Federal Administration of the United States in the Philippines may also file a petition in favor of a ward thereof, and the Director of Health, in favor of an insane person who should be hospitalized or in favor of an isolated leper. B.) An insane cannot be a witness in court: Rule 130, Sec. 19 (a), Rules of Court Physical disqualification The following persons cannot be a witness: (a) Those who are of unsound mind at the time of their production for examination, to such a degree as to be incapable of perceiving and making known their perception to others. What are Steps in Diagnostic Procedure of Mental Affection? 1.) Anamnesis: b.) Family History: 1.) Inquire on the medical condition of the parents and other ascendants, uncles, brothers, and sisters. 2.) Inquire whether anyone of them suffered from nervous diseases, cerebral affection, suicide, syphilis, etc. c.) Personal History:

1.) Detailed characteristic from childhood to his present state. 2.) Determine excess use of intoxicating drugs. 3.) Sexual life, occupation, mental strain, head injury and early nervous affection. d.) Information from relatives, friends, and neighbors: Change of conduct and behavior, habit, previous conduct or maniacal episode. 3.) Physical Examination. 4.) Instrumentations: X- ray, electroencephalogram, scanning and other modern apparatus. 5.) Mental Examination: Psychologic Testing Psychiatric Evaluation

What are the provisions of law which make a mental illness or insanity an exempting or mitigating circumstance to criminal liability? Mental Illness may be an Exempting or Mitigating Circumstance to Criminal Liablity: 1.) As an Exempting Circumstance: Art. 12, Revised Penal Code Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability: 1.) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. 2.) As a mitigating circumstance: Art. 13, Revised Penal Code Mitigating circumstances The following are mitigating circumstances: 8.) That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings. 9.) Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. 10.) And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

What are the rules utilized by courts to Determine Whether the Mental Condition Of An accused Exempts him from his criminal Liability? Rules Utilized By Courts to Determine Whether the Mental Condition Of An accused Exempts him from his criminal Liability: Art. 12 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile is exempt from criminal liability. In the medical viewpoint a person is insane when he is suffering from mental derangement or confusion or a condition which prevents a person from orienting himself. It is a prolonged departure of the individual from his natural mental state arising from bodily disease. What is the phase in the criminal act where the evidence of insanity of the accused must be established? Phase in the Criminal act where the evidence of insanity of the accused must be established: The evidence of insanity must be referred to at the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. In order to ascertain a persons mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time. To prove insanity, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice. Distinction between Feigned and True Insanity: 1.) Feigned insanity develops suddenly while true insanity develops insidiously, usually with the observance of some predisposing to an exciting cause if careful history of the case is taken. 2.) There is no peculiar facial expression in feigned insanity which is commonly observed in true insanity. 3.) Symptoms of insanity may only be observed in feigned insanity when he is conscious that he is under observation and becomes normal when he is alone and unobserved. There is such remission of symptoms in true insanity. 4.) In feigned insanity the symptoms may be complete, numerous and may clinically refer to a specific clinical disease. In true insanity, although in some instances the symptoms may not refer to a specific clinical disease, there is more tendency to point to a specific clinical entity.

5.) Violent exertion of feigned insanity usually leads to an early exhaustion while in true insanity the patient can withstand violent exertion without any sign of exhaustion and fatigue. 6.) A feigned insane usually observes rules of personal hygiene and does not look dirty and filthy. A true insane is filthy, dresses dirtily and does not observe hygiene. What is malingering? In medicine, malingering is fabricating or exaggerating the symptoms of mental or physical disorders for a variety of secondary gain motives, which may include financial compensation (often tied to fraud); avoiding school, work or military service; obtaining drugs; getting lighter criminal sentences; or simply to attract attention or sympathy. Malingering is different from somatization disorder andfactitious disorder.[1] Failure to detect actual cases of malingering imposes a substantial economic burden on the health care system, and false attribution of malingering imposes a substantial burden of suffering on a significant proportion of the patient population

Conclusion The determination of the insanity of a party is very important to know the criminal liability of the accused. The accused may invoke the defense of insanity to mitigate his criminal responsibility or even exempt himself from such liability. The determination of the insanity of a party is not only applicable to a criminal action. It is also important to know the extent of a party in a civil action. It is a must that the court should distinguish feigned insanity from true insanity. It is because through this, the accused cannot escape his criminal liability by just invoking the defense of insanity. The fundamental Principles in Criminal Responsibility are the following:

1.) A sane man is assumed to be wholly responsible for the consequence of his criminal act. 2.) A person who commits a criminal act is presumed to be sane. The burden of proof lies on the accused to prove that he is not sane and cannot be held responsible for his criminal act. 3.) The crime is always considered to be an affair of the mind as well as the body and to make an act or omission a crime, there must be a criminal act (actus reus) and a criminal mind (mens rea). This is inconsonance with the legal maxim that actus facit reum nisi mens sit rea (There cannot be a guilty act unless there is a guilty mind.) So, how would our courts know that the party invoking to be insane is really one? Of course, the courts shall order the party to undergo a physical examination and to be the subject of some psychological testings and psychiatric evaluations. As mentioned earlier, there are tests or rules in determining the insanity of the accused. And, it is the discretion of the court what rule or test to choose it deems to be very accurate and effective. Moreover, insanity, when proved can: 1.) Restrict the capacity of a natural person to act 2.) Modify or limit the capacity of a natural person to act 3.) Be a ground for the annulment of marriage when a party had that at the time of marriage 4.) Can be a ground for the disallowance of a will when the testator was insane at the time of execution of the will since a testator must be of sound mind at the time of execution of a will 5.) Make the will invalid when a witness was insane at the time of execution of the will since it is required that a witness to a will must be of sound mind at the time of the execution of a will 6.) Void the contract since an insane cannot give consent to a contract 7.) Make the guardian or the insane himself liable for the damages due to his insanity. 8.) Exempt a person from criminal liability 9.) Require an appointment of a guardian on the person of the insane 10.) Make an insane disqualified from becoming a witness in court Mental diseases to consider as a whole

In cases where in the client of a defense attorney is legally insane, they must prove to the court that the accused person is insane. Several tests and

examinations as well as testimonials can prove that the accused is truly insane Over the years, the way how the court sees legal insanity as a defense in court proceedings vary from time to time. However, today, almost all went back to the strict definition of legal insanity. The way how the court rules towards an insane person before are automatic excused of the crime that was committed; but now, everything became stricter. In general, a person is said to be legally insane when they do not know what is right and what is wrong. This also means they do not know what is moral and immoral. Although many cases were dismissed because the accused is legally insane, the defense attorney must prove to the court the validity of insanity during the time that the crime was committed.

A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. The insanity defense should not be confused with incompetency. Persons who are incompetent to stand trial are held in a mental institution until they are considered capable of participating in the proceedings. The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts.

Feigned insanity is the simulation of mental illness in order to avoid or lessen the consequences of a confrontation or conviction for an alleged crime. Today feigned insanity is considered malingering. In a 2005 court case, United States v. Binion, the defendant was prosecuted and convicted for obstruction of justice (adding to his original sentence) because he feigned insanity in a Competency to Stand Trial evaluation At the center of the legal use of insanity lies the mens rea, the mental element of a crime or the intent to commit a criminal act. (Senna G-10) Every crime involves a physical act, or actus reus, and a mental act, or mens rea, the non-physical cause of behavior. The difficulty here lies in analyzing the mens rea. In order to do this lawyers apply one of several rules used by psychologists. It is an accepted fact that every rule or test as mentioned earlier has its own criticisms from the surrounding people. It is the discretion of our courts which one of these rules or test they shall apply for the best determination of whether or not a party is insane or not.

Thus, a court by applying the strict procedures, rules, or test to determine the insanity of the party or accused claiming to be so may mitigate or exempts the latter from criminal liability depending on the conclusiveness and persuasiveness of the results of these rules or tests applied.

Cover Page

References