PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

HONORIO TIBON Y
DEISO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
The Facts

Two Informations charged Tibon of the following:

The prosecution presented witnesses Senior Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Jose M. Bagkus;
Francisco Abella Abello, Jr., Tibon's neighbor; Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Emmanuel Aranas
of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory; Gina Sumingit, Tibon's common-law
wife and mother of the two victims; and Renato Tibon, brother of Tibon. Tibon was the
sole witness for the defense.

During trial, the following facts were established:

Accused-appellant and his common-law wife Gina Sumingit (Gina) lived together as
husband and wife since 1994. They had two children, Keen Gist (KenKen) and Reguel
Albert (Reguel).[2] They lived with accused-appellant's parents and siblings on the third
Due to financial difficulties, Gina went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper, After
some time, accused-appellant heard from his sister who was also working in Hong Kong
that Gina was having an affair with another man. After the revelation, he was spotted
drinking a lot and was seen hitting his two children. [5]

On the night of December 12, 1998, accused-appellant's mother [6] and his siblings, went
to accused-appellant's room. They saw accused-appellant with KenKen and Reguel. The
two children appeared lifeless and bore wounds on their bodies. When accused-
appellant realized that his mother and siblings had seen his two children lying on the
floor, accused-appellant stabbed himself on the chest with a kitchen knife, to the shouts
of horror of his mother and siblings. He tried to end his life by jumping out the window
of their house.[7] Accused-appellant sustained a head injury from his fall but he and his
two children, KenKen ande Reguel, were rushed to Mary Johnston Hospital by his
siblings Renato and Leilani and some of their neighbors. Once at the hospital, accused-
appellant received treatment for his injuries. The two children, however, could no longer
be revived.[8]

Gina the wife flew back to the philippines upon discovery of the death of her children.
Based on the autopsy of the deceased bodies of children the accused must be
extremely angry. After the interview conducted by police officer to Tibon, he eventually
confided that he was despondent and voluntarily admitted to stabbing the children

Gina confronted Tibon at the hospital where he was confined. She said the latter
confessed to stabbing their children and begged for her forgiveness. She added that he
even wrote a letter again the next year asking to be forgiven. Supported by receipts,
she claimed that she spent PhP 173,000 for the wake and funeral of her two children.
When asked if she could quantify the damage caused to her in terms of money, she said
it was for PhP 500,000.[14]

Tibon denied the charges against him and raised insanity as defense. He said that he
could not recall what happened on the night he allegedly stabbed his two children. He
also could not remember being taken to the hospital. He said he was only informed by
his siblings that he had killed KenKen and Reguel, causing him to jump off the window
of their house.[15]

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The RTC found for the prosecution. It gave full faith and credit to the witnesses who
testified against Tibon. In contrast, Tibon's testimony was found unworthy of belief. In
spite of his defense of insanity, the trial court noted that he was in full control of his
faculties before, during, and after he attacked his two children. The dispositive portion
of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, accused HONORIO TIBON y DENISO is found

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of two (2) counts of Parricide, and
sentencing him in each case to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH and to pay the
heirs of the victims KEEN GIST TIBON and REGUEL ALBERT TIBON P75,000.00 each as
civil indemnity.[16]

The Ruling of the Appellate Court

On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC and found that the defense did not
overcome the presumption of sanity. The appellate court stressed that evidence of
insanity after the commission of an offense may be accorded weight only if there is also
proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of
the crime. It reduced the penalty meted to Tibon to reclusion perpetua.

The Issue

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INSANITY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLLANT.

The Ruling of this Court

Tibon argues that the exempting circumstance of insanity was established, therefore
overthrowing the presumption of sanity. Combined with Tibon's testimony, Tibon's
medical record with the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) and his strange
behavior allegedly show an unstable mind deprived of intelligence. That he had no
recollection of the stabbing incident is further proof of his insanity. His criminal act of
stabbing his children was, thus, involuntary.
The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, rebuts
the argument of Tibon by asserting that his mental state, as ascertained by the NCMH,
referred to his condition to stand trial and not his mental state before and during the
commission of the crimes with which he was charged. Furthermore, Tibon's non-
recollection of the stabbing incident does not prove his insanity.The People argues that,
contrary to the requirements on establishing insanity, Tibon was unable to present any
competent witness who could explain his mental condition. Lastly, the reduction of civil
indemnity from PhP 75,000 to PhP 50,000 is recommended, since the crimes were not
attended by any aggravating circumstances.

We affirm Tibon's conviction.

The Revised Penal Code defines parricide as follows:

Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall
be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.

Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate
spouse of the accused.[18]

Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from
criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval. x x x

The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a

successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human
condition.[19] While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or
insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless that person has acted during a
lucid interval, the presumption, under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is
sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of
proving it[20] with clear and convincing evidence. [21] 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 accused's
insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with
the commission of the offense with which he is charged. [22] We agree with the Solicitor
General that the mental records Tibon wishes to support his defense with are
inapplicable to the theory he espouses. The NCMH records of his mental health only
pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or
during the commission of the crimes.
The change in Tibon's behavior was triggered by jealousy. He acted out of jealous rage
at the thought of his wife having an affair overseas. Uncontrolled jealousy and anger are
not equivalent to insanity. Nor is being despondent, as Tibon said he was when
interviewed by the police. There is a vast difference between a genuinely insane person
and one who has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use
reason or good judgment in what he does. [23] We reiterate jurisprudence which has
established that only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of
the commission of the crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be
considered.[24]

The requirements for a finding of insanity have not been met by the defense. As the
appellate court noted, Tibon's unusual behavior prior to and after he committed
parricide do not meet the stringent standards on an insanity plea as required by this
Court. The presumption of sanity has not been overcome. In contrast, the prosecution,
as found by the lower courts, sufficiently established evidence that Tibon voluntarily
killed his two children on the night of December 12, 1998. On this matter, We find no
reason to reverse the findings of fact made by the trial court and affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.

A final word. Parricide is differentiated from murder and homicide by the relationship
between the killer and his or her victim. Even without the attendant circumstances
qualifying homicide to murder, the law punishes those found guilty of parricide
with reclusion perpetua to death, prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346
(An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines). The
commission of parricide is punished more severely than homicide since human beings
are expected to love and support those who are closest to them. The extreme response
of killing someone of one's own flesh and blood is indeed unnatural and tragic. Tibon
must thus be handed down the harshest penalty for his crimes against his innocent
children.

Penalty Imposed

In view of RA 9346, the appellate court correctly modified the sentence of Tibon
to reclusion perpetua.

Pecuniary Liability

When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil
indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages;
(3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages. [26]

The Solicitor General recommended the reduction of civil indemnity from PhP75,000 to
PhP50,000. However, recent jurisprudence pegs civil indemnity in the amount of
PhP75,000,[27] which is automatically granted to the offended party, or his/her heirs in
case of the former's death, without need of further evidence other than the fact of the
commission of murder, homicide, parricide and rape.[28] People v. Regalario[29] has
explained that the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death
penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the
death penalty attended the commission of the offense.

According to Art. 2199 of the Civil Code, one is entitled to adequate compensation for
pecuniary loss suffered by him that is duly proved. This compensation is termed actual
damages. The party seeking actual damages must produce competent proof or the best
evidence obtainable, such as receipts, to justify an award therefor. [30] We note that the
trial court failed to award actual damages in spite of the presentation of receipts
showing wake and funeral expenses (Exhibits "R," "R-1," "R-2," "R-4," and "R-5")
amounting to PhP173,000. We therefore grant said amount.

Moral damages are also in order. Even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the
heirs' emotional suffering, it has been recognized that the loss of a loved one to a
violent death brings emotional pain and anguish, [31] more so in this case where two
young children were brutally killed while their mother was away. The award of
PhP75,000.00 is proper pursuant to established jurisprudence holding that where the
imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA 9346, the
award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. [32]

Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the trial court should have made accused-
appellant account for PhP30,000 as exemplary damages on account of relationship, a
qualifying circumstance, which was alleged and proved, in the crime of parricide. [33]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01406 convicting accused-appellant Honorio Tibon y Deiso of parricide
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant should pay the heir of
the victims:

(1) Civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 for each victim;

(2) Actual damages of PhP 173,000;

(3) Moral damages of PhP 75,000 for each victim; and

(4) Exemplary damages of PhP 30,000 for each victim.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez,

JJ., concur.