G.R. No. 125849 January 20, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO BAÑEZ y CABAEL, alias “WILLY,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Wilfredo Bañez was living in his parents’ house. On August 14, 1994, his sisters, Elvira and Emelinda, came to the house because their father, Bernardo Bañez, complained that accused-appellant made trouble when drunk and wanted to put him up in another house. That evening, while discussing this plan, accused-appellant, who appeared drunk, ran to the kitchen, got two knives, and entered his father’s room. Emelinda followed and screamed. Elvira entered and saw accused-appellant stabbing their father, saying, “You are sending me away!” Elvira tried to stop him, pleading “He is our father,” but accused-appellant stabbed her on the hand, forearm, and buttock. Emelinda threw a piece of wood at him, prompting accused-appellant to say, “You are also one,” and chase her. The victim sustained ten stab wounds and died from cardiac tamponade. Accused-appellant pleaded insanity. Dr. Rico Angelo Gerona III testified that accused-appellant, admitted 20 days after the crime, was suffering from schizophrenia, possibly caused by gasoline addiction or family problems, but he could not say whether accused-appellant was insane at the time of the crime. The accused-appellant’s mother testified about his prior confinement for gasoline addiction. The trial court found him guilty of parricide, appreciated the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and habitual intoxication, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the exempting circumstance of insanity.
2. Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of intoxication and dwelling.
3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty instead of reclusion perpetua.

RULING

1. The defense of insanity was not sufficiently proven. The law presumes every person sane. The evidence must prove that the accused was insane at the very moment of the crime’s commission. Dr. Gerona’s testimony was inconclusive, as he admitted he could not determine accused-appellant’s mental condition on August 14, 1994. The doctor stated that schizophrenia “may be 99% correct or 1% wrong” and that the writings prior to the crime were not conclusive of insanity at the time of the killing. Furthermore, accused-appellant’s actions—getting knives, stating a motive (“You are sending me away!”), chasing his sister, and later expressing remorse—indicated awareness of his actions.
2. The aggravating circumstances were not duly proven. For habitual intoxication to be aggravating, it must be shown that the accused is a habitual drunkard or that the intoxication is habitual. The mother’s testimony that accused-appellant “drinks liquor only when offered” negates habitual intoxication. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not appreciated because the crime was committed in the victim’s house, where the accused also lived; dwelling is not aggravating when the offense is committed in the dwelling of the victim, and the accused also lives there.
3. The penalty is modified. The crime is parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances duly proven, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed pursuant to Article 63(2). Thus, the death penalty imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is affirmed.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.