14 March 2013

Geraldine Damaso Valera Brgy. 28, St. Joseph Laoag City

RE: Robbery with Homicide against Jerome Mamaril

Dear Ms. Valera: This is in response to your query and to address your apprehension on the respondents defense of insanity and the latters alibi based on his counter-affidavit. In your complaint-affidavit and also from the affidavit of your witnesses, it was clear that all of you were present during the robbery in your bakery and grocery on May 20, 2003. Although it wasnt stated in said affidavits that Jerome Mamaril was acting in his normal self, it could be gleaned my interview with you and your witnesses the fact that he was sane and his acts could not be that of an insane person. When the accused announced a hold up he knows what he was asking and doing when he ordered your husband Dante Valera to put the money in the bag and the rest of you to be on your knees. When the money was placed in the bag, you have seen him shot your husband and Jenny Manuel saw him rode on his silver owner type jeep and sped away. The questions now that has to be addressed are the following: a) Whether Jerome Mamaril committed the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide; b) Whether Jerome Mamaril was insane on the day of the commission of the crime; and c) Assuming for the sake of argument that the latter was insane, can he be held liable to answer for the crime of robbery with homicide. In this regard, I am of the following opinion: A. The Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide was committed based on the following: Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code specifically states:

1/4

Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence or intimidation of any person shall suffer: (1)The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. (Emphasis Supplied) The following elements must be established for a conviction in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide: 1. The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; 2. The property taken belongs to another; 3. The taking is with intent to gain; and 4. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. (People v. Esoy, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010.) Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a direct relation, an intimate connection, between the robbery and the killing, even if the killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the robbery (People vs. Salazar, 277 SCRA 67 [1997]). Based on the facts youve given, your establishment was robbed by the accused and after which said accused shot your husband Dante Valera which caused the latters untimely demise, this fact alone supports the charged of robbery with homicide. B. With regards to the accuseds defense of insanity in a bid to escape from criminal liability, this I have to say: Article 800 of the Civil Code states: Art. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. x x x The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. It is improper to assume the contrary. This presumption, however, may be overcome by evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the RPC, exempts a person from criminal liability. In People of the Philippines vs. Paul Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 5, 2009 citing People v. Formigones, the Court has established a more stringent standard for insanity to be an exempting circumstance. There, it was held that, for insanity to be appreciated in favor of the accused, there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason or there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
2/4

In the recent decision of the Supreme court in People of the Philippines v. Edwin Isla y Rossell, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012, the Court says: Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accuseds insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. x x x Accused Jerome Mamaril exactly knew that what he was doing was evil so much so that he had to employ treachery, by pretending to be a buyer and by resorting to threats and violence, to ensure the consummation of his terrible deed. The fact that he fled away after he was able to take the money and shot Dante Valera would only show that he fully understood that he committed a crime for which he could be held liable. If Jerome Mamaril had become insane after the commission of the crime, such fact does not alter the situation. On the other hand, his medical record of previous confinement in asylum for those mentally ill does not conclude that he was not sane at the time of the commission of the crime. His defense could still fails considering that he was not insane during the commission of the acts charged. C. Accused cannot avoid liability by way of his defenses. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove (People v. Guillera, G.R. No. 175829, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 161, 170). To establish alibi, an accused must prove (1) that he was present at another place at the time the crime was perpetrated; and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. (People v. Esoy, G.R. No. 185849, April 7, 2010). The distance between the scene of the crime and the residence of Jerome Mamaril is not that far and with the use of the latters motor vehicle it could be reached within a short period of time that is within 15-20 minutes. Thus, it was not physically impossible for accused to be in the scene of the crime. Also, you are positive about his identity. Such positive identification could prevail over the negative and self-serving denial of Mamaril. As shown by the foregoing, it is clear that Jerome Mamaril could be held liable for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. It follows then that if Jerome Mamaril will be found guilty of the crime charged, you will be entitled to indemnity for the death of your husband and other

3/4

award of damages for under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code A person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. I should however, emphasize at this juncture that while existing laws and jurisprudence may support your action, there is no reason why the accused on its part, may not prove its earlier defense and that he should not be held liable pursuant to the express provision of Article 12 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that an imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval shall be exempt from criminal liability. As your lawyer, therefore, I recommend that we proceed with the criminal suit against Jerome Mamaril. If you have further query, please do not hesitate to call or visit me.

Very truly yours, Monet

4/4