G.R. No. 144266. November 27, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON ANTONIO, JR., ALIAS “INTSIK,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Wilson Antonio, Jr. was convicted of murder for killing Sergio “Bobby” Mella and sentenced to death. At around 7:15 a.m. on June 16, 1996, in San Remegio, Antique, Antonio was seen carrying a gun and walking towards Mella’s house, ignoring his sister’s pleas to stop. Around 7:30 a.m., gunshots were heard from inside Mella’s house. Kevin Paul Mella, the seven-year-old son of the victim, witnessed the incident. He was lying beside his sleeping father when he heard a window open and footsteps. The bedroom door was kicked open, and Antonio entered carrying a shotgun, aimed at Sergio Mella, and fired, hitting him on the chest, shoulder, back, and left thigh. Antonio then hurriedly left. The police found Sergio Mella dead. Antonio eluded arrest for over a year until he surrendered on October 23, 1997. At trial, Antonio admitted the killing but raised the defense of insanity, claiming he was exempt from criminal liability. His mother, Fe Antonio, testified about his history of unusual behavior, moodiness, and psychiatric treatment since 1994, including periods when he would not take his prescribed medication and would act irrationally. A psychiatrist, Dr. Rowena G. Cosca, who interviewed Antonio two years after the incident, diagnosed him with schizo-affective disorder or psychosis, stating that a person with such a condition might not know what he is doing. However, Antonio himself testified that he killed the victim out of anger and a desire for revenge after Mella boxed him during a drinking bout earlier that morning, and that he knew killing was against the law and he would be imprisoned.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Wilson Antonio, Jr. was legally insane at the time he killed Sergio Mella, thereby exempting him from criminal liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that the defense of insanity was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Insanity, as a ground for exemption from criminal liability, requires a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, meaning the accused must be so insane as to be incapable of entertaining criminal intent. The presumption is that every person is of sound mind. To successfully plead insanity, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was insane at the time of or immediately before the commission of the crime. The testimonies of Fe Antonio and Dr. Cosca failed to establish Antonio’s mental condition at the precise moment of the killing. Fe Antonio last saw him at 8:00 a.m. on June 15, 1996, and did not see him again until his surrender on October 23, 1997. Dr. Cosca examined him only in September 1998, two years after the incident, and her diagnosis was not conclusive as to his sanity on June 16, 1996. She admitted that a psychotic person may have varying degrees of awareness of his acts and that it could not be conclusively presumed that Antonio was insane at the time of the incident. Most significantly, Antonio’s own testimony revealed that he killed the victim out of anger and revenge, aware that his act was wrong and would lead to imprisonment, thereby negating any complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of will. The Court found the killing attended by treachery, as the victim was asleep and defenseless when shot. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua because the Information did not allege any aggravating circumstance. The civil indemnity was increased to P75,000.00, and the award for lost earnings was adjusted to P855,000.00, while moral damages of P100,000.00 were sustained.