039. People v. Rafanan

November 21, 1991

Feliciano, J.

Short Version:

Rafanan was convicted of raping Estelita Ronaya. His defense was insanity in the form of schizophrenia. The SC rejected his defense and upheld his conviction, ruling that while he was, in fact, insane, he did not experience a complete destruction of intelligence at the time of the act.

Facts:

In 1976, when Estelita Ronaya was 14 years old, she was hired by Ines Rafanan, aka “Baket Ines,” mother of Policarpio Rafanan, as a househelper at their house in Bgy. San Nicolas, Villasis, Pangasinan.

One night, on March 16, 1976, Ronaya was sent by Baket Ines to help in the store in front of their house, which, at the time, was manned by Policarpio. When Policarpio asked Ronaya to close the door of the store, he suddenly pulled her inside the store and said, “Come, let us have sexual intercourse,” to which Ronaya replied, “I do not like.”

Policarpio then held a 1 ½ foot bolo to her throat, and forced himself upon her, having sexual intercourse. After the filing of a complaint, and trial, the CFI-Pangasinan convicted Rafanan of rape. Hence this appeal.

Issues:

1. WON the inconsistencies in testimony meant that the evidence was hearsay. (No.)

2. WON Policarpio’s schizophrenia absolved him of criminal liability. (No)

Ratio:

1. It was claimed that the testimony was incredible, because on direct Ronaya claimed that she went home immediately, while on cross she said she went home the next day. However, the inconsistencies related to minor and inconsequential details which do not touch upon the manner in which the crime had been committed and did not thus

affect the credibility of Ronaya. In all other respects, the commission of the crime was not seriously disputed by Rafanan.

2. ****************LET’S GET CRAZY**************Policarpio’s main defense was that he was suffering schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent intentions upon Estelita. At the trial court level, the court ordered him confined at the National Mental Health Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation and treatment. During this time, four reports were made by Drs. Simplicio N. Masikip and Arturo E. Nerit, each concluding that he was suffering from schizophrenia, as symptomized by the ff.:a. Sluggishness in movement, indifferent to interviewb. Carelessly attired with disheveled hair, staring vacuously through

the windowc. Indifferenced. Frequently answering “Aywan ko, hindi ko alam.”e. Claiming to hear voices “parang ibon, tinig ng ibon.”f. Constantly saying “Oki naman” to himself.1

g. Even when he was released because he had improved, still hearing voices in his head and talking to himself.

As a result of the reports, the doctors concluded he was not in a condition to stand court trial, until the 4th report, where he was cleared for trial. Rafanan’s defense at trial was that he was already schizophrenic 1 to 2 years before he was confined, and was thus already insane at the time of the rape.

This defense was based on Art. 12 of the RPC, which exempts imbeciles and insane persons from criminal liability, unless the latter acted during a lucid interval.

Insanity as a defense is subject to two standards, as set out in the case of People v. Formigiones, to wit:

1. Test of cognition—complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, and

2. Test of volition—total deprivation of freedom of the will.

Schizophrenia, formerly dementia praecox, is the most common form of psychosis, symptomized by disturbance of association, affect and activity. Previous cases where schizophrenia was interposed as a defense saw that

1 Which, judging from the fact he’s from Pangasinan, and thus Ilocano, is probably not what he was actually saying.

theory rejected by the Court. The evidence in these cases tended to show that any impairment of the mental faculties was not so complete as to deprive the accused of intelligence of the consciousness of his acts.

At trial, Dr. Jovellano, a psychiatrist who testified that she had examined and treated Rafanan, said that he was not devoid of consciousness at the time he perpetrated the rape and capable of palnning the assault. Her testimony negated complete destruction of intelligence at the time of the commission of the act. Thus, the defense of insanity cannot be sustained.

The law presumes each man to be sane. A person accused of a crime has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. An inquiry into the mental state of the accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moement the act is committed. Rafanan failed to discharge this burden. The testimonies of the doctors related to general behavioral patterns of people afflicted with schizophrenia. The defense even failed to present Dr. Masikip, who observed Rafanan during his confinement.

However, while schizophrenia does not exempt Rafanan, it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance as an illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender’s willpower without depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

Decision affirmed.

Gabe.