G.R. No.

89420

July 31, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSALINO DUNGO,

accused-appellant.
Facts: On March 16, 1987 between 2:00 and 3:00pm, the accused went to Mrs.
Sigua's office at the Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After a brief
talk, the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was carrying and stabbed Mrs.
Sigua several times. After which he departed from the office with blood stained
clothes, carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. The autopsy report revealed that the
victim sustained 14 wounds, 5 of which were fatal.
Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified that sometime in February 1987,
the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife was requiring so many
documents from him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR.
The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he was insane at the time of
the commission of the offense:
Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, Rosalino's wife noticed that he appears to be in
deep thought always, maltreating their children when he was not used to it before.
There were also times that her husband would inform her that his feet and head
were on fire when in truth they were not.
On that fateful day, Rosalino complained of stomachache but they didn't bother to
buy medicine as the pain went away immediately. Thereafter, he went back to the
store. But when Andrea followed him to the store, he was no longer there. Worried,
she looked for him. On her way home, she heard people saying that a stabbing
occurred. She saw her husband in her parents-in-law's house with people milling
around. She asked her husband why he did the act, to which Rosalino answered,
"That's the only cure for my ailment. I have cancer of the heart. If I don't kill the
deceased in a number of days, I would die. That same day, the accused went to
Manila.
Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health testified that
the accused was confined in the mental hospital, as per order of the trial court
dated Aug. 17, 1987. Based on the reports of their staff, they concluded that
Rosalino was psychotic or insane long before, during and after the commission of
the alleged crime and classified his insanity as an organic mental disorder
secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. But Dr. Balatbat who treated the
accused for ailments secondary to stroke, and Dr. Lim who testified that the
accused suffered dorm occlusive disease, concluded that Rosalino was somehow
rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their clinic.
Issue: Whether or not the accused was insane during the commission of the crime
charged.
Held: No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability, it is necessary that
there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that he acts

w/o the least discernment and that there be complete absence or deprivation of the
freedom of the will.
Under Philippine jurisdiction, there's no definite test or criterion for insanity.
However, the definition of insanity under Sec 1039* of the Revised Administrative
Code can be applied. In essence, it states that insanity is evinced by a deranged
and perverted condition of the mental faculties, which is manifested in language or
conduct. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and
consequence of his act.
Evidence of insanity must refer to the mental condition at the very time of doing the
act. However, it is also permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition for a
reasonable period before and after the time of the act in question. The vagaries of
the mind can only be known by outward acts.