G.R. No. 233193. October 10, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RENATO BACOLOT Y IDLISAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Renato Bacolot was charged with Murder for hacking Rodolfo Jabayjabay to death on May 14, 2008, in Carigara, Leyte. The prosecution presented eyewitness Arnulfo Jabayjabay, the victim’s brother, who testified that during a drinking session, Renato suddenly took a scythe and hacked Rodolfo three times while the latter was singing with his face turned away. Renato also attacked Arnulfo, who survived. Dr. Bella Profetana, who conducted the post-mortem examination, confirmed the hacking wounds, with the neck injury being fatal. The defense did not contest the killing but interposed the defense of insanity.
Renato’s counsel initially requested a mental examination, leading to a finding of incompetence to stand trial and subsequent treatment. After being declared fit for trial, he pleaded not guilty. The defense presented Dr. Lorelei Grace Genotiva, who testified that Renato had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, exhibited psychotic trends, and had poor memory recall of the incident. She opined that he was likely in a psychotic state during the crime and that his condition had no chance of complete recovery.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Renato Bacolot’s conviction for Murder, specifically in rejecting his defense of insanity.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. It modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide and appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) beyond reasonable doubt. The essence of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness. The eyewitness account indicated the attack was sudden, but the record was devoid of concrete details demonstrating that Renato consciously employed a particular method to render Rodolfo helpless. The suddenness of an attack alone does not equate to treachery without proof of deliberate planning.
Regarding the defense of insanity, the Court ruled it was not sufficiently established. Insanity, as an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, requires a complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of will at the precise moment of the crime’s commission. Dr. Genotiva’s testimony, while detailing Renato’s history of mental illness and diagnosis, was inconclusive on his exact mental state during the hacking incident. Her statement that he “did not know what he did at the time” was a general conclusion not specifically tied to the event. The Court emphasized that the presumption of sanity prevails, and the burden of proving insanity lies with the defense, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The defense’s evidence failed to overcome this presumption.
With treachery not proven, the crime is Homicide. The Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Renato presented himself to authorities after the incident. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He was ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages.