G.R. No.
54135 November 21, 1991  Her mother immediately accompanied her to
Plaintiff - Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant- Appellant: Policarpio Rafanan, Jr.
Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. appeals from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicting him
of the crime of rape and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua to indemnify complainant Estilita Ronaya in
the amount of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages
and to pay the costs.
FACTS of the case by the Trial Court:
 February 1976 – Estelita Ronaya was only 14
when she was hired as househelper by the
mother of Policarpio, ‘Baket Ines’
o P30.00 a month salary
 Policarpio and his family lived with his mother
in the same house at Brgy. San Nicolas,
Villasis, Pangasinan
o He was married with two children
 March 1976 – after dinner Estelita was sent
by Baket Ines to help in the store
o At the time Policarpio was in the store
o 11:00 PM Policarpio called Estelita to
help close the door of the store and
then pulled her inside the store. He
told her “Come let us have sex”,
which Estelita refused.
 She tried to free herself and
cried. However, Policarpio is
holding a bolo 1 ½ feet long
pointed at her throat and
threatened her if she
resisted.
 He succeeded having carnal
knowledge of her. He then
warned her not to report the
matter to anybody in the
house otherwise he would kill
her.
o She did not report the matter due to
fear and proceed with her daily
routine the following day. She
eventually left the house the evening
of the same day.
 The Rafanan family learned of what
happened with Policarpio and Estelita. Her
mother confronted the her but she only cried
and cannot tell her what happened.
 It was only the following morning when she
informed her mother that she was raped.
Patrolman Mairina who is cousin of her
father.
o Policarpio was brought to the police
headquarter with the bolo
 During the arraignment, Policarpio entered a
plea of not guilty.
o Case proceeded and the appellant
was convicted.
 Instant appeal was anchored on the ff:
o Assignment of errors
1. Lower court erred in basing its
decision of conviction solely on
the testimony of Estelita and her
mother
2. Erred in considering the hearsay
evidence for the prosecution
3. Erred in not believing the
testimony of the expert witnesses
(as to mental condition of
Policarpio at the time of the
incident)
4. Erred in convicting appellant who
was suffering from insanity.
 Appellant first assail the testimonies of
Estelita and her mother which accdg to him
was contradictory as there are inconsistent
statements which she clarified during her
cross-examination.
 Principal submission of the appellant:
o He was suffering from schizophrenia
when he did the crime.
o Due to this the trial was suspended
and ordered appellant be confined at
the Nat’l Mental Hosp.
 The case was archived for the
meantime while he was
admitted.
 He stayed there for a year
and a half.
 The hospital prepared 4 clinical reports
 In conclusion of the 1st report (Jan 1977):
Policarpio was found suffering from a mental
disorder. He is psychotic or insane, hence
cannot stand trial.
 2nd report (June 1977): He is still psychotic,
hence not yet in condition to stand trial.
 3rd Report (October 05, 1997): Better
behaved, responsive and neat in person,
adequate in his emotional tone, in touch with
his surroundings and free from hallucinatory
experiences.
o He has been allowed to leave the
hospital temporarily and he stayed
with a relative in Manila.
 o During his stay there though he
looked normal there are instances
when he smiles when alone and he
complains that he hears children
talking but he could not understand.
 It was concluded that in his
situation though he had
improved, he was not yet in a
position to stand trial.
 In the last report June 1978 it was concluded
that he was in a "much improved condition"
and "in a mental condition to stand court trial.
 Trial of the case resumed
 Defense first presented Dr. Arturo Nerit who
suggested that appellant was sick and
suffering from schizophrenia when he raped
Estelita
o Next is Dr. Raquel Jovellano
(psychiatrist) who testified that he
had examined and treated Policarpio.
 Plea of insanity of Policarpio rests on Article
12 of RPC
o Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. The ff. are exempt:
 An imbecile or insane person,
unless the latter acted during
lucid interval
 when they commit
felony (delito), the
court shall order their
confinement in a
hospital or asylums.
They are not
permitted to leave
unless permitted by
the court.
 Reference case: It was only in People vs
Formigones that the court elaborated on the
required standards of legal insanity. The SC
of Spain held that
o in order that this exempting
circumstance may be taken into
account,
1. it is necessary that there be a
complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act
2. that the accused be deprived of
reason
3. no responsibility for his own acts
4. acts without the least
discernment
o it was held that imbecility or insanity at
the time of commission of the act
should absolutely deprive a person of
intelligence or freedom of will,
because mere abnormality of his
mental faculties does not exclude
imputability.
o Also exempted are the deaf and the
mute
 Allegation of insanity or imbecility must be
clearly proved by the defendant or it will be
presumed that he was still in normal
condition.
o Acts penalized by law are always
reputed to be voluntary.
 In the Formigones they established 2 tests:
o Test of cognition – complete
deprivation of intelligence in
committing the criminal act
o Test of volition – there will be total
deprivation of freedom
 In our Courts’ practice, it is of common
reliance to the test of cognition.
 If the accused failed to show complete
impairment or loss of intelligence, at most
the court will mitigate, but not exempting in
accord with Art 13 of RPC:
o “Such illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-
power of the offender without
however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts”
ISSUE:
Whether or not Policarpio, who is suffering from
schizophrenia is conscious before and or during the
sexual assault to Estelita.
RULING:
Questioning/Cross-examination of the Doctor
 The doctor indicated that Policarpio was not
completely devoid of his consciousness.
o In addition, he answered Fiscal
Guillermo that those acts whether he
is schizophrenic deals some kind of
intelligence and consciousness.
o That he capable of planning the
crime.
o That an insane person are equipped
with knowledge that an act they are
going to commit is wrong.
 They just lose inhibition or
their reasoning is weak yet
they understand but volition
is not there
 The above negates complete destruction of
intelligence at the time of the act of Policarpio
 It is only the complete loss of intelligence to
be exempted.
 The appellant failed to present clear and
convincing evidence regarding his state of
mind, before and during the sexual assault.
 Policarpio depended on the testimonies of
the two physicians. However their
testimonies consisted of broad statements
based on behavioral patterns of people
suffering from schizophrenia.
 The court decided to reject the insanity
defense of appellant Policarpio.

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is

hereby AFFIRMED, except that the amount of
moral damages is increased to P30,000.00.
Costs against appellant.