Insanity defense
Usa ka doktor nangutana sa iyang pasyente, “Nag-antos ka ba sa deperensiya sa utok?” Tubag sa pasyente, “Wala man, Dok. Nalingaw ra man ko.” Doktor: “Duna bay laing sakop sa imong pamilya nga nag-antos sa sakit sa utok?” Pasyente: “Wa, Dok. Mora’g lingaw ra man mi tanan.”
Dili lalim kon dunay deperensiya sa pangisip ang usa ka tawo.
Ug sagad ra ba, ang tawo nga nag-antos sa sakit sa utok way kalibotan niini ug sa iyang gipangbuhat.
Sa higayon nga makahimo siya og usa ka krimen, duna ba siya’y tulubagong criminal?
Ang Article 12, Revised Penal Code nagkanayon, “The following are exempt from criminal liability: 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
“When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act that the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.”
Klaro nga exempted sa tulubagong kriminal ang imbecile ug insane, gawas lang kon nahimo niya ang krimen atol sa lucid interval, sa dihang naulian siya sa maayong pangisip.
Ang pangutana kon unsa ang lagda sa pag-ila sa usa ka tawo nga boang. Hinumdumi baya nga ang Art. 800, New Civil Code, nagkanayon, “The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.”
Dunay presumption nga ang matag tawo tarong kon way pruweba nga may deperensiya siya sa utok.
Unsa man ang gibug-aton sa pruweba ang gikinahanglan sa pagmatuod nga ang usa ka tawo “imbecile” o insane”?
Ang Korte Suprema, sa kaso nga People v. Formigones (GR L-3246, Nov. 29, 1950), pinaagi ni Associate Justice Marcelino Montemayor, mipagawas sa istrikto nga lagda mahitungod sa “insanity defense.”
Matod pa sa Korte Suprema sa maong kaso, “In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile within the meaning of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.”
Apan sa People v. Lito Paña (GR 214444, Nov. 17, 2020), ang Korte Suprema, pinaagi ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic MVF Leonen, mitawag sa lagda sa Formigones nga “a concept born out of the narrow view that rejects the psychodynamic nature of human psychology. It fails to acknowledge that mental illnesses exist in a spectrum, and its all-or-nothing notion of mental illnesses reflects a detachment from established and contemporary concepts of mental health.”
Matod niini, “We now use a three-way test: first, insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; second, insanity, which is the primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven; and third, the effect of the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act.”
Sa katapusan, ang pagkabuang iprobar pinaagi sa “clear and convincing evidence,” di “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Sumala sa Korte Suprema, “Verily, insanity is not an element of the crime that should be demonstrated with proof beyond reasonable doubt. The defense only bears the burden of disputing the presumption of sanity. Ultimately, the defense must proffer evidence of insanity sufficient to overcome the presumption. This quantum of evidence is not necessarily proof beyond reasonable doubt.” (edbarrita@gmail.com)