G.R. Nos. 147674-75; March 17, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANACITO OPURAN, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Anacito Opuran was charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of Allan Dacles and Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., on the evening of November 19, 1998, in Catbalogan, Samar. For the prosecution, witness Bambi Herrera testified that he saw Opuran stab Dacles, who was lying on a bench, and then chase the victim into Herrera’s house. Later that same evening, witness Tomas Bacsal, Jr., testified that he saw Opuran emerge from a hiding place and stab Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., multiple times near the national highway. Both victims died from their wounds.
The defense presented Opuran, who denied the accusations and claimed he was at home in another barangay when arrested. During trial, the defense moved for a psychiatric examination. A subsequent medical report from the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center diagnosed Opuran with “Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type,” stating he was psychotic at the time of the offenses and lacked the capacity to discern the wrongfulness of his acts. The trial court convicted Opuran of two counts of murder, appreciating treachery and rejecting the insanity defense.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction, specifically in rejecting the insanity defense and appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crimes from murder to homicide. The Court rejected the insanity defense. While the medical report indicated schizophrenia, insanity must be proven to have completely deprived the accused of intelligence at the very moment of the crime’s commission. The defense failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of this total deprivation. Opuran’s actions—hiding before an attack, fleeing afterwards, and the coherent, successive nature of the assaults—demonstrated a conscious effort to execute the crimes and avoid detection, negating a complete absence of rational perception.
However, the Court downgraded the crimes to homicide, finding treachery not proven with moral certainty. For Dacles, the attack on a victim lying on a bench did not automatically constitute treachery, as the prosecution failed to establish that this position was deliberately chosen by the accused to ensure the attack without risk. For Patrimonio, the witness did not see the commencement of the assault, leaving doubt as to whether the mode of attack was consciously adopted to eliminate any possible defense. The qualifying circumstance must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. The Court affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages but reduced the exemplary damages due to the absence of qualifying circumstances.