SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 216021, March 02, 2016
Doctrine: Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are
exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
FACTS: Solomon Verdadero was accused of murder for stabbing Romeo Plata using a Rambo
knife causing the latter’s death. To evade culpability, he invoked the defense of insanity. Despite
his defense, defendant was convicted for homicide on September 9, 2009 in the Regional Trial
Court, a ruling which was upheld in the Court of Appeals due to the failure of Verdadero to
establish insanity as an exempting circumstance.
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction
despite the fact that his insanity at the time of the incident was established by clear and convincing
evidence.
HELD: Yes. Under Art. 12 of the RPC, an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal
liability, unless the latter had acted during a lucid interval. In order to qualify for exemption, he
must prove that he was completely deprived of intelligence because of his mental condition and in
order to raise insanity as defense, insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which the accused is charged. Immediate
admission of Verdadero to the commission of the crime and his immediate defense of his deranged
mental faculties proved his complete deprivation of intelligence. Meanwhile, his insanity during
the crime was proved by the history of his mental disorder, testimony of Dr. Leonor Andres-Juliana
in 2009 that Verdadero was suffering a relapse of his schizophrenia which was later affirmed by
Dr. Paggadu in 2011, and his odd behaviour immediately preceding and after the incident as
evidenced by Maynard Plata’s and Miriam Verdadero’s testimonies. Plata’s testimony relates to
the immediate precedent of the crime where Verdadero was observed to have some symptoms of
a relapse (acting drunk with sharp and reddish eyes). Miriam’s testimony on the other, relates to
the evidence after the commission of the crime where when admitted in CVMC, he removed his
IV tubes and locked himself in the comfort room. Generally, evidence of insanity after the
commission of the crime is immaterial. It, however, may be appreciated and given weight if there
is also proof of abnormal behavior before or simultaneous to the crime. However, while the
petitioner is exempt from criminal liability due to his insanity, the court does not totally free him
from the responsibilities and consequences of his acts. He is to be confined in an institution where
his mental condition may be addressed. He is also nevertheless, responsible to indemnnify the
heirs of Romeo for the latter’s death as his civil liabilities still exist.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JONAS PANTOJA Y ASTORGA
G.R. NO. 223114, November 29, 2017
Doctrine: Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are
exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
FACTS: On July 22, 2010 in Taguig City, Jonas Astorga, with intent to kill, armed with a kitchen
knife did then there wilfully, unlawfully, treacherously, and feloniously attack, assault and
repeatedly stab one [AAA], who was 6 years of age, which is an act also considered to be cruelty
against children, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body; thereby inflicting upon him
fatal injuries which caused his death. The defense invoked the defense of insanity since the accused
has a history of mental illness, diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2007 and an escapee from National
Center of Mental Health (NCMH).
The RTC ruled the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and there being
no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua in addition to paying for civil liabilities due to insufficient evidence. CA affirmed the
RTC ruling as while the accused has a history of mental illness which diminished the exercise of
his willpower without depriving him of the consciousness of his acts, this mitigating circumstance
could not serve to lower the penalty meted as reclusion perpetua is a single and indivisible penalty.
ISSUE: (1) Whether accused-appellant has clearly and convincingly proven his defense of insanity
to exempt him from criminal liability and, in the negative, (2) whether his mental issues constitute
diminished willpower so as to mitigate his liability and to lower the penalty.
HELD: (1&2) No. This Court sees no reason to overturn the decision of the CA, except to modify
the amount of damages awarded. Testimonies and evidences presented fail to establish that the
accused was completely bereft of reason and discernment and freedom of will when he fatally
stabbed the victim as these do not point to any behaviour of the accused at the time of the incident
in question, or in the days and hours before the incident which could establish that he was insane
when he committed the offense. This is so as on the day of the incident, no aberrant behaviour was
observed of accused as he was merely sitting on the balcony and no eye witnesses could relay the
behaviour of the accused during the commission of the crime; his history of mental illness does
not constitute insanity during the incident and shows that the accused’s insanity was not continuous
as he had lucid intervals; and documents offered in evidence by the defense do not categorically
state that accused was insane nor do they show when he became insane; whether such insanity
constituted absolute deprivation of reason; and whether such insanity existed at the time of the
crime. No expert testimony was presented before the court to testify on such.
Even if the mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower were to be considered in accused-
appellant’s favour, it cannot be a basis for changing the nature of the crime nor for imposing a
penalty lower than that prescribed by law considering that treachery attended the murder of the
victim.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BARTOLOME
GR No. 191726, February 6, 2013.
Doctrine: Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
5. Any person who acts in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

Definition (as defined in the case): Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the
employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Thus,
in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into
committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of
committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged
originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his
or her conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to
be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has been said, instigation
is a "trap for the unwary innocent," while entrapment is a "trap for the unwary criminal."

As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of

arresting violators of Republic Act No. 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders
in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.

Facts: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit
(ADSOU) in coordination with PDEA in Caloocan City after a tip was received on an illicit drug
dealing. The buy-bust operation commenced and the exchange of a marked 100 peso bill from the
poseur buyer with a sachet containing shabu from the suspect, Noel Bartolome y Bajo was made.
In the accused’s defense, he claimed that the arresting officers had framed him up because they
wanted to extort a substantial amount from him in exchange for his release. The accused argued
that the operation mounted against him was not an entrapment but an instigation, contending that
without the proposal and instigation made by poseur buyer Paras no transaction would have
transpired between them; that the police team did not show that its members had conducted any
prior surveillance of him; and that the Prosecution should have presented the informant as a witness
against him.
The RTC and the CA ruled him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime.
Issue: Whether the transaction resulting to the arrest of Bartolome is an instigation.
Ruling: No. The transaction was a legal entrapment operation. The selling of shabu was
consummated with the corpus delicti presented as evidence. From the proceedings of the buy-bust
operation, the accused was shown to have been ready to sell the shabu without much prodding
from Paras. Prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially
when the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by the informant. Similarly, the
presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a
prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security
reasons. There is no question that the idea to commit the crime originated from the mind of the
accused. Also, frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted which renders such defenses hard
to believe. Such defenses, to be credited at all, must be established with clear and convincing
evidence which the accused failed to present.