Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19


Not Guilty on the Grounds of Insanity: The Correlation of the Psychological Definition of
Insanity with Case Law.


Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth
his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever (Genesis 3:22). We all
know of the story of Adam and Eve, the worlds first parents who ate the forbidden fruit in
the Garden of Eden. After eating the fruit, they came to know of what is good and evil, and
became ashamed of their nakedness. This verse from the Bible shows that indeed man is a
moral being created by God endowed with free- will or the freedom to choose right from
wrong and to do good or evil. This is the classical premise on which the Penal Code is
mainly based, that human beings have the ability to choose between good and evil, and that
when one commits a crime, the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily, with freedom,
intelligence and intent. Therefore, one should be held accountable for wrongful acts so long
as the free will appears unimpaired (People of the Philippines vs. Estrada, 2000). Article 12
(1) of the Revise Penal Code provides that when an imbecile or insane person commits a
crime, he or she is exempted from criminal liability. Jurisprudence has always viewed
insanity as the complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. One must be
deprived of reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete absence
of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Viewed from a
psychological perspective, the concept of insanity has gradually developed due to the
growing complexities of the human mind that the word insanity no longer encompasses these
developments. Currently, the word insanity is no longer an accepted psychological term; it is
avoided in favor of specific diagnoses of mental illness. These mental illnesses are classified
in the manual developed by the American Psychiatric Association known as the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR).
With the issues presented, there is a growing need to examine insanity as viewed by
Philippine jurisprudence in contrast with that provided by the science of psychology. This
paper seeks to discover the intersection between jurisprudence and psychology in defining
and interpreting insanity which is used by accused persons in pleading not guilty. This paper
will tackle these issues one by one in the hope that lawmakers will take due notice of it, and
address the need for an amendment in consideration of these developments.

A. The Claim/ Thesis Statement
Philippine jurisprudence has always equated insanity with the complete deprivation of
intelligence and discernment in committing a crime, viewed from a psychological
perspective; there are many other factors that the courts should take into account in
considering a claim of insanity to be valid.

B. Importance Of The Study
The influence of psychology in this age can no longer be disregarded especially when it
comes to the legal system. With this, it is important to take note of the evolution of concepts
especially when it comes to deciding cases. This study will significantly alter the existing
provision found on Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code as it will propose new definition
to the word insanity.


C. Research Questions:
1. What psychological disorders constitute insanity as defined by the American
Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
IV Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR) versus the definition found in Philippine
2. What is the correlation of the definition between the psychological and case law
3. When can Article 12 (1) of the Revised Penal Code be imposed?
4. Is insanity limited to complete deprivation of intelligence?
5. When is insanity validated? Before or after the commission of the crime?
6. Why is insanity a ground to avoid imprisonment?


A. Review of Related Literature
The American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders IV Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR) is a manual developed by the said organization
in order to address the growing need of the times to come up with a scientific
classification system or a nomenclature of the various mental disorders. It was developed
to be used in clinical, educational, and research settings which are supported by an
extensive empirical foundation. The manual is widely used by different professionals
engaged in various fields such as psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, therapists
and others. The DSM-IV-TR classifies mental disorders into sixteen (16) major
diagnostic classes (e.g. Gender Identity Disorders, Anxiety Disorders). The manual does
not utilize the word insanity to refer to the mental health of individuals but retains the

term mental disorders since the developers have not found any more appropriate
substitute than the same term. The concept of mental disorder lacks a consistent
operational definition that covers all situations. Although the concept does not provide a
specific operational definition of what a mental disorder is, it must be noted that these
disorders have a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunctions as manifestations.
It does not include deviant behaviors or conflicts with society unless it is a symptom of
dysfunction. It also does not include responses or reactions that are normally expected of
an individual due to an occurring event such as the death of a loved one (American
Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4

ed. text rev. Washington, DC: Author).
The earliest case of insanity plea can be traced back as early as in the medieval era when
insanity was never a defense for a crime, but when these killers asked pardon from the
king, it were often granted. Gradually insanity was allowed but only within narrow limits.
It came to be known as the wild-beast stage of the defense (Cardozo, B., What Medicine
Can Do For Law. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange , LTD, 2005). It was the
MNaghtens case in 1843 that laid down the standards of the insanity plea. MNaghten
attempted to assassinate Prime Minister Robert Peel but instead shot the prime ministers
secretary, Edward Drummond because he believed he was being persecuted. He pleaded
not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The case held that to establish a defense on the
ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the
party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not
to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did
not know that what he was doing was wrong (Queen vs. MNaghten, 1843).
Revised Penal Code, Article 12: Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability- the
following are exempt from criminal liability. (1) An imbecile or insane person, unless the

latter has acted during a lucid interval. The statute further provides that an imbecile or
insane person has committed an act which the law defines as 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. Article 12(1) of the same code makes a distinction between an imbecile
and an insane person. An imbecile is one who while advance in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age (Reyes,
L. The Revised Penal Code. Manila: Rex Printing, Inc., 2012). Mental disorders that
usually fall under imbecility include mental retardation, pervasive developmental
disorders, and attention- deficit & disruptive behavior disorders. Symptoms and
manifestations of these disorders are usually detected as early as infancy or childhood and
generally last throughout ones lifespan. Within the ambits of Article 12, it defines
imbecility as the complete deprivation of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at
the time of committing the crime (People vs. Formigones, 1950). If examined carefully,
with regards to the context of the statute there is not much difference between imbecility
and insanity only that the latter may have lucid intervals wherein an insane person acts
with intelligence. Philippine jurisprudence have established that only when there is a
complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the
exempting circumstance of insanity be considered. He must be deprived of reason and act
without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern
or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. The mere abnormality of the mental faculties
does not preclude imputability. According to Reid, a forensic and clinical psychiatrists in
his article The Insanity Defense: Bad or Mad or Both (2000) that the insanity defense
contrary to public perception is not overused nor an easy way for accused criminals to
beat the rap. More often than not, less than one percent of the defendants plea insanity

with less than a quarter success rate. In addition, Reid pointed out that the courts is not so
much concerned with the specific diagnoses, but how it affected his or her ability to do
certain things at the time of the allegedly criminal act. To quote Reid, the law says (using
its own language, not our clinical definitions) that the relevant factor is the persons
ability to do certain specific things, not his or her diagnosis (or even symptoms per se).
Statutes and jurisprudence has clearly established that mental disease or mental
defect does not include conditions for which the only or primary manifestation is chronic
antisocial or illegal behavior (Reid, W. The Insanity Defense: Bad or Mad or Both.
(2000). Journal of Psychiatric Practice, May, pp.170-172).
In summary, jurisprudence and statutes have always make used of the term insanity to
refer to individuals who are completely deprived of intelligence at the time of the
commission of the crime and acting without discernment due to the deprivation of the
will. Viewed from a psychological perspective, the concept of insanity has long been
discarded because it is not a medically and scientifically accepted term. Psychology and
psychiatry prefers to utilize the term mental disorders in describing an individuals mental
health condition. Jurisprudence seems to be more general in defining insanity while
psychology looks into the classification of what constitutes mental disorders or insanity.

B. Methodology
My research methodology requires an examination of the definition and constituting factors
of insanity confined in Philippine case laws and definition presented by the American
Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV Text
Revised (DSM-IV-TR).

C. Scope Limitations
The present study looks into the correlation of the definition of insanity between Philippine
case laws and the DSM-IV-TR. One of the limitations is that the findings of the study may
not apply to the other States who adopts the Insanity Plea. Also, the resources used in this
study are limited to the DSM-IV-TR and case laws only. Other relevant researches or
resources may not be incorporated and there might be certain lapses and loopholes resulting
from this matter. Lastly, the writer of this research is neither a psychiatrist nor a licensed
psychologist, therefore the writers views and opinions may not be considered conclusive.

As Ive already mentioned, the term insanity is no longer a scientifically accepted term in
the sphere of psychology and psychiatry. The use of the term has long been disposed due
to its negative connotations however; the use of the term is still utilized in the Philippine
legal system and is found in statutes and case laws. In order to fully comprehend the
similarities and differences in the definition of insanity between the DSM-IV-TR and
Philippine Case Laws, there is a need to examine the concepts that intertwine the two.


A. The Mental Disorders Classified as Insanity under Philippine Jurisprudence
For the purposes of this paper, the mental disorders which are accepted by the courts in
allowing the insanity plea will be based on the American Psychiatric Associations
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR). The
mental disorders specified herein are in line with the jurisprudence definition of insanity that
is the complete deprivation of intelligence or the lack of ability to discern in committing a
crime. It is to be noted that DSM-IV-TR includes numerous mental disorders which may not
constitute the aforementioned definition of insanity. Therefore, it is but right to distinguish
between these mental disorders and only mention herein those that capture the definition of
insanity as provided by jurisprudence. The first group consists of Delirium and Dementia. A
delirium is characterized by a disturbance of consciousness and a change in cognition that
develop over a short period of time. Delirium is either caused by a general medical condition,
substance intoxication, substance withdrawal or a combination of these factors. The
disturbance in consciousness is manifested by a reduced clarity of awareness of the
environment. Perceptual disturbances may include misinterpretations, illusions, or
hallucinations. People suffering from dementia also suffer from emotional instability, and
there may be rapid shifts from one emotional state to another. Fear often accompanies
threatening hallucinations or transient delusions. If fear is marked, the person may attack
those who are falsely perceived as threatening. This disorder usually hits 0.4% of adults aged
18 years and older and 1.1% in those aged 55 and older. Next in line is Dementia which is
characterized by multiple cognitive deficits such as aphasia, apraxia, agnosia, or a
disturbance in executive functioning that also includes impairment in memory. The cognitive
deficits must be sufficiently severe to cause impairment in occupational or social functioning
and must represent a decline from a previously higher level of functioning. ). Occasionally,
they may harm others by becoming violent, and shows disinhibited behaviors such as

disregarding conventional rules of social conduct. Individuals with dementia also experience
hallucinations and delusions especially with themes of persecution (e.g. threats of being
killed). They are most especially vulnerable to physical and psychosocial stressors which
may worsen their intellectual deficits and other associated problems. The next group consists
of Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The disorders under this group include
Schizophrenia, Schizophreniform Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Delusional Disorder,
Brief Psychotic Disorder, Shared Psychotic Disorder, Psychotic Disorder Due to a General
Medical Condition, Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder, and Psychotic Disorder not
Otherwise Specified. Schizophrenia is a disorder that lasts for at least 6 months and includes
at least 1 month of active-phase symptoms. These symptoms and characteristics involve a
large range of cognitive and emotional dysfunctions that include perception, inferential
thinking, language and communication, behavioral monitoring, affect, fluency and
productivity of thought and speech, hedonic capacity, volition and drive, and attention. The
symptoms of Schizophrenia are categorized into two, positive and negative. Positive
symptom include delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, and grossly disorganized or
catatonic behavior. On the other hand, negative symptoms include affective flattening, alogia,
and avolition. Delusions of this disorder may include a variety of themes, it may be
persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, or grandiose. Persecutory and referential
delusions are the most common, in the former the individual believes that he or she is being
tormented, followed, tricked, spied on or ridiculed while on the latter the individual believes
that gestures, comments, songs, etc. are specifically directed at him or her. There are various
types of schizophrenia, they are the following: paranoid, disorganized, catatonic,
undifferentiated and residual. The next member of the group is the Schizophreniform
Disorder. This disorder has the same essential features with that of Schizophrenia only that
the duration of this disorder must at least be one month, but less than six months, and

impaired social or occupational functioning during some part of the illness is not required to
be diagnosed with Schizophreniform. Next we have the Schizoaffective disorder that is
characterized by a mixture of symptoms with that of schizophrenia and mood disorders which
must occur within a single uninterrupted period of illness. Delusional disorder is the presence
of one or more non bizarre delusions that persist for at least one month. Erotomanic,
grandiose, jealous, persecutory somatic, mixed, unspecified type are the subtypes under this
disorder. On the other hand, Brief Psychotic Disorder is a disturbance that involves the
sudden onset of at least one of the following positive psychotic symptoms: delusions,
hallucinations, disorganized speech, or grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior. The
symptoms or disturbance usually last at least one day but less than one month after which the
individual recovers to a premorbid level of functioning. Another member is the Shared
Psychotic Disorder which is characterized by a delusion that develops in an individual who is
in a close relationship with another person suffering any of the psychotic disorders with
delusions. The disorders mentioned above are not due to any general medical condition or
substance inducement, which is in contrast with the next two psychotic disorders which has
its etiology on the causes mentioned. These disorders are known as the Psychotic disorder
due to a general medical condition and Substance Induced Psychotic disorder. With regards
to the latter, there is still a recurring issue whether it can be a valid defense for the insanity
plea since it is voluntary and premeditated. Other States consider this disorder so long as it is
a settled insanity which is a permanent condition resulting from substance abuse, and not
due to the effects of intoxication. The next cluster involves the Mood Disorders, but since
these disorders do not generally affect the mental state of the persons but is more associated
with emotional tendencies, it should be excluded from the list. Hence, we proceed with the
next group which we refer as the Anxiety Disorders. It is an accepted fact that not all
disorders found on this cluster is an accepted disorder for insanity plea, hence we will only

cover those that are significant to our topic. Hence, we will only discuss the controversial
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or commonly known as PTSD. It has become controversial
since it was successfully invoked in the United States wherein a former soldier was ruled not
guilty on the grounds of insanity since he was suffering from the said disorder. Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD is the development of characteristic symptoms following
exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor that revolves around death or injury either to
oneself or to others. The persons response to the event must involve intense fear,
helplessness or horror. The next cluster within the context of insanity is the Dissociative
Disorders group. In this group, we will only limit to the Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)
or previously known as Multiplt Identity Disorder. This is yet another controversial disorder
brought up by insanity defenses. Dissociative Identity Disorder also known as DID is
characterized by the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states that
recurrently take control of behavior. There is inability to recall important personal
information, the extent of which is too great to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
Usually there is a primary identity that carries the individuals given name and is passive,
dependent, guilty and depressed. The other identities possess another name with
characteristics and personalities opposite of the primary identity. The hostile identity is more
often than not, the identity that is prone to crime and other illegal activities. Other disorders
that are considered within the jurisprudence definition of insanity include the sleepwalking
disorder and some Impulse Control disorders. Sleepwalking is the repeated episodes of
complex motor behavior initiated during sleep, including rising from bed and walking about.
It may also include other behaviors, such as eating, operating machineries. Persons who
sleepwalk have complete amnesia for the events and activities that happened while
sleepwalking. Lastly, some impulse control disorders that may be embraced within the
context of insanity include Intermittent Explosive Disorder and Kleptomania. The former is

characterized by discrete episodes of failure to resist aggressive impulses resulting in serious
assaults or destruction of property. The latter, on the other hand is characterized by the
recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal objects not needed for personal use or monetary
value. The inability to resist impulses to commit an act is considered to be within the context
of insanity in Philippine jurisprudence. If the unlawful act was committed due to a mental
disorder, which resulted to an irresistible impulse, such that he or she was deprived or lost the
freedom of the will which would prevent him from committing the act, should be considered
within the concept of insanity (Reyes, L. The Revised Penal Code. Manila: Rex Printing, Inc.,

B. Tests in Determining Insanity
It is important to take note that before a defense of insanity can be admitted by the court; the
defendants must present sufficient evidence that he was insane before or during the
commission of the crime. There are two tests undertaken in order for a plea of insanity to be
admitted. The two tests are: (a) Cognition test or complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the criminal act and (b) Volition test or the so-called "irresistible impulse" test
which means that "assuming defendant's knowledge of the nature and quality of his act and
his knowledge that the act is wrong, if, by reason of disease of the mind, defendant has been
deprived of or lost the power of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from
doing the act, then he cannot be found guilty." The commission of the crime is excused even
if the accused knew what he was doing was wrong provided that as a result of mental disease
he lacked the power to resist the impulse to commit the act (People vs. Ambal, 1980 citing
State v. White, 270 Pac. 2d. 727, 730; Leslie Kast, 31 North Dakota Law Review, pp. 170,
173.). The latter must be accompanied by the former to be exempt from liability, on the other
hand, the former may exist without the latter (Boado, L. Comprehensive Reviewer in

Criminal Law, Books I&II Revised Penal Code and Special Laws. 1
ed. Manila: Rex
Printing, Inc., 2004).

C. Findings and Testimonies of Psychological Experts and Psychiatrists
Psychological experts and psychiatrists play a major role in cases involving insanity plea.
They are the ones who are entrusted with the task to determine and if possible diagnose the
mental condition of the accused claiming insanity. In order to make a full descriptive account
of the accused mental disorder, it requires a comprehensive psychological background,
various psychological tests, interviews, family and historical data. With any of these lacking,
it would be hard to fully diagnose the accused. Regardless of whether or not the expert was
able to produce a comprehensive psychological data of the accused, the decision is still left to
the judge/s who are not learned in the realm of psychology and mental health.

D. Mind of a Criminal Individual versus an Insane Mind
Distinction has to be made between a criminal mind and that of an insane mind. A criminal
mind maybe mentally ill like that of an insane person; however the difference lies with the
intent, the malice, and the evil behind the criminal act. An insane person, as we have already
established is completely deprived of intelligence or that he is totally deprived of the freedom
of the will. It therefore follows, that an insane person does not know why he committed the
act in the first place, had no intention, and had no motif in committing the crime. As Ive
already said, a criminal person may be mentally ill but he committed the crime not because
he was not aware of it, but out of it he is likely to gain something (e.g. sexual gratification
from rape). As in the case of serial killers, a criminal mind knows that what he does or about

to do maybe penalized by the law, but still continues with the act despite legal consequences;
an insane mind on the other hand does not. Evil is therefore present in a criminal mind
compared with that of the insane.

From the evidences and data presented, it is apparent that what jurisprudence and clinical
psychology provides are positively correlated. It may have differed in the usage of terms,
jurisprudence have retained the word insanity while psychology has opted for mental
disorders but more or less covers the precept behind the concept. The definition of insanity
is a legal term, not a mental health term, and the defendant must meet the legal definition of
being insane. The exact definition of insanity varies by jurisdiction. Not everyone who
suffers from a mental illness is judged by the courts to be insane (OMeara, J.2009. citing
CRONIN, supra note 88, at 90). Indeed, many individuals who suffer from a psychosis and
commit a crime do not meet the legal criteria for insanity. However, it is notable that there
are far more mental disorders which are not covered by the insanity plea. These disorders
may not be brought about by physiological etiologies nor stemmed from substance abuse but
nevertheless merits the attention of Philippine jurisprudence.



A. The use of DSM-IV-TR in deciding cases involving the plea of insanity
Since the conception of the manual, psychiatrists and psychologists have made use of it for
the diagnosis and treatment of various mental disorders. The manual encompasses varying
culture, age, nationality, religion and race. This means that it is not merely applicable to the
American population but it applies to everyone regardless of race, age, gender and ethnicity.
Attached to the manual, are the experts who are learned in interpreting and applying the said
material. In deciding cases where the plea of insanity is involved therefore, it is important to
note that psychologists and psychiatrists play a big role and their findings and opinions
should be given weight. As mentioned above, jurisprudence is not so much concerned with
the technicalities of the mental disorders, but only if it meets the criteria it has set to validate
a claim of insanity. This is a recurring sickness which requires proper remedy. Despite the
fact that insanity pleas end up unsuccessful most of the times, still the provisions with regards
to these matters should still be addressed. For one, the tem insanity should be abolished
from our legal system. It should be replaced with more clinical terms such as mental
disorders. Second, our courts or legislators should study well the contents of DSM- IV-TR
and seek opinions from the experts in amending or enacting the statutes concerning insanity
and possibly come up with a specific list on which mental disorders are considered within the
jurisdiction of insanity.

B. The Inclusion of Other Factors in Deciding Cases Involving the Insanity Plea
As found on my thesis statement, I believe that our jurisprudence lacks some standards when
it comes to the insanity plea. Aside from the two tests, the court should consider other
underlying factors that constitute insanity. These factors include functionality, physical
manifestations, significant events and possibility of recovery. As one can observe above, the

mental disorders mentioned significantly point out functionality. Functionality includes
occupational and social function. Physical manifestations on the other hand comprise
observable behaviors such as gestures, language, and other movements. Significant events are
those events that can be attributed to the crime committed. I recommend that in deciding
cases regarding the insanity plea, the courts take into consideration these factors Ive
mentioned. Even if the accused committed the act without knowledge of right or wrong, or he
was totally deprived of the freedom of the will, if it be seen that he is able to function in
society, either socially or occupationally; then he is not to be declared insane. If also, he is
observed to make gestures, communicate, and other physical movements in a normal and
efficient manner, then he nevertheless cannot be exempt from criminal liability. Lastly, if the
act could be traced back to events, incidents that lead to the commitment of the crime, it is
but fair to also consider these events in deciding the cases. . In addition, courts should also
take cognizance of the fact that if these disorders they consider to fall within the jurisdiction
of insanity can be treated, then they may be subjected to imprisonment after recovery, so that
justice may be served to those that were deprived of it. Merely focusing on the case laws
definition of insanity might lead to dangers that could harm society. It to be noted however,
that psychiatry still lacks a clear standard to enunciate when a person ought to be held liable
for their choices. This can be attributed to the uncertainty of the organic basis for these
mental disorders. The causal factors linking the body, mind and behavior are still poorly
understood (O Meara, J. He Speaks Not, Yet He Says Everything; What of That?: Text,
Context and Pretext in State v. Jeffrey Dahmer. 2009. Denver University Law Review. 97-
137). Therefore, despite all this findings, the burden of making the decision is still left to the
judge who presides the case.


Indeed, there exists a thin line between Psychology and jurisprudence when it comes to the
insanity defense or the term insanity in general. My research has established that insanity as
defined by jurisprudence and psychology are positively correlated. This means, that the two
fields of science have the same scope in recognizing the term. Only that psychology and
psychiatry prefers to use the term mental disorder in contrast with that of case laws.
However, there is also a great distinction between the two since psychology and psychiatry
are more concerned with taxonomy or classifying these disorders in order to correctly
attribute the symptoms and maladies attached to the disorder. This seems not to be the case
for jurisprudence, since the only significant formula for the courts is to determine whether or
not there is complete lack of intelligence or deprivation of the freedom of the will on the part
of the one who committed the crime or offense. Courts fail to recognize other important
factors that may be attributed to the mental disorder of the person concerned. This includes
functionality, physical manifestations, significant events and possibility of recovery.
Although the plea of insanity is unsuccessful most of the times, we should still be guarded to
those who would like to justify their acts and escape from their liabilities through the plea of
insanity. In succeeding such claims, we might deprive justice and equity to those who were
badly hurt and affected. This is done through further studies of the intersection between
psychology/psychiatry and law. The world of psychology and jurisprudence may be light
years away, but the growing complexities of our times call for a better understanding of the
human mind, and jurisprudence is not exempt to that.


American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (4
ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author
Boardo, Leoner. Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law, Books I&II: Revised Penal Code
and Special Laws. 1
ed. Manila: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2004.
Reyes, Luis. The Revised Penal Code: Book One Articles 1-113. 18
ed. Manila: Rex
Printing Inc., 2012.
Clevenger, S.V. Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity or Forensic Psychiatry. Vol. 1. New
York: The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company. 1898.
Cardozo, Benjamin. What Medicine Can Do For Law. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange,
Ltd., 2005.

Articles and Publications:
Guenther, Daniel. The Intersection of Psychology and Law: Exploring Social Issues and
Social Problems Relating to the Insanity Defense. Retrieved from
cial_Issues_and_Social_Problems_Relating_to_the_Insanity_Defense. Retrieved on
September 17, 2013.
Schopp, Robert. Returning to MNaghten to Avoid Moral Mistakes: One Step Forward, or
Two Steps Backward for the Insanity Defense. Arizona Law Review 30. (1988): 135-153.

Guarnieri, Deborah, et.al. Practice Guideline: Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Defendants
Raising the Insanity Defense. Supplement to the Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiarty and the Law.30.2. (2002).
OMeara, Gregory. He Speaks Not, Yet He Says Everything; What of That?: Text, Context
and Pretext in State v. Jeffrey Dahmer. Denver Univeristy Law Review 87.1. (2009): 97-137.
Retrieved from: http://mediaserv.law.du.edu/pdf/lawreview/O'Meara_ToDarby.pdf on
September 17, 2013.
Reid, William. The Insanity Defense: Bad or Mad or Both?. Journal of Psychiatric Practice.6.
(2000): 169-172. Retrieved from: http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/Reid05-00.pdf on
September 15, 2013.
Supreme Court Decisions:
People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Estrada. G.R. No. 130487. (June 19, 2000).
People of the Philippines vs. Donato Bascos. G.R. No. L-19605 ( December 19, 1922).
People of the Philippines vs. Celestino Bonoan Y Cruz. G.R. No. L-45130 (February 17,
The United States vs. Evaristo Aquilar. G.R. Nos. L-9471 and L-9472. (March 13, 1914).
People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Medina Y Catud. G.R. No. 113691. (February 6, 1998).
People of the Philippines vs. Abelardo Formigones. G.R. No. L-3246. (November 29, 1950).
People of the Philippines vs. Honorato Ambal. G.R. No. L-52688. (October 17,1980).
Queen vs. Daniel MNaghten. 10 Clark & F. 200, 2 Eng.Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843).