G.R. No. 126135 ; October 25, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO OCFEMIA y MAIMOT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alberto Ocfemia was charged with the murder of his 16-year-old maid, Miriam Reyes, in Makati on September 22, 1995. The information alleged the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation. Initially, Ocfemia pleaded guilty. The trial court, following procedure, conducted a searching inquiry and required the prosecution to present evidence. The prosecution presented Margie Ocfemia, the appellant’s live-in partner, who testified that the appellant had admitted to touching the victim’s private part earlier that day. When the victim refused his plea not to tell anyone, he later stabbed her multiple times while she was asleep.
Subsequently, the appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which was granted. He then entered a plea of not guilty and testified in his defense. He claimed he was at work in Quezon City during the day and, upon arriving home late that night, was informed the maid was leaving. He alleged he then experienced a memory lapse, finding himself near a chapel in Taguig without knowing how he got there, and only learned of the killing upon his return. He later sought a psychiatric examination to interpose the defense of insanity, but this motion was denied by the trial court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for psychiatric examination and in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and (2) whether the aggravating circumstance of relationship (as master and maid) should be appreciated to increase the penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court ruled the trial court correctly denied the belated motion for psychiatric examination. The defense of insanity must be interposed at the time of arraignment or, at the latest, at the start of the trial. The appellant’s motion was filed only after he had already testified, constituting an afterthought. Furthermore, his claim of a memory lapse, without more, did not substantiate insanity. The Court also found no voluntary surrender, as the appellant was already arrested at his brother’s house upon the police’s initiative; he did not spontaneously submit himself to authority.
On the second issue, the Court held that the relationship of master and maid is not an aggravating circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court erred in appreciating it as such. Article 15 specifically enumerates relationships that aggravate liability, such as ascendancy, descendancy, and spousal relations. The relationship between a household employer and domestic helper is not included. Since treachery qualified the killing to murder, and no other aggravating circumstance was properly present, the prescribed penalty under Article 248 is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed. The awards for actual and moral damages were affirmed.