People vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr.
G.R. No. 54135 (204 SCRA 65)
FACTS:
On February 27, 1976, complainant Estelita Ronaya who was then only fourteen years old was
hired as a house helper by the mother of the accused. The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his family
lived with his mother in the same. Policarpio was then married and had two children.
On March 16, 1976, in the evening, after dinner, Estelita Ronaya was sent by the mother of the
accused to help in their store which was located in front of their house. Attending to the store at the
time was the accused. At 11:00 o'clock in the evening, the accused called the complainant to help him
close the door of the store and as the latter complied and went near him, he suddenly pulled the
complainant inside the store and said that they should have intercourse, Ronaya refused. The accused
held a bolo and pointed it to the throat of the complainant threatening her with said bolo should she
resist. He then raped Ronaya despite her resistance and struggle. After the sexual intercourse, the
accused cautioned the complainant not to report the matter to her mother or anybody in the house,
otherwise he would kill her. In the evening of March 17, 1976, the family of the accused learned what
happened that night.
The principal submission of appellant is that he was suffering from a mental aberration
characterized as schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent intentions upon Estelita.
The trial court suspended the trial and ordered appellant confined at the National Mental
Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation and treatment. On the last report dated 26 June 1978,
appellant was described as behaved. Thus, trial of the case resumed. The defense first presented Dr.
Arturo Nerit who suggested that appellant was sick one or two years before his admission into the
hospital, in effect implying that appellant was already suffering from schizophrenia when he raped the
complainant.
However, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicted him of the crime of rape for failure
to prove the merit of insanity. He was then sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify complainant
Estelita Ronaya in the amount of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages, and to pay the costs. Hence, the
appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reason of insanity in this case is sufficient to relieve himself of criminal
liability through exempting circumstance.
HELD: NO. The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this exempting circumstance may be
taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
act, that is, the accused be deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that the
acts without the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. For this
reason, it was held that the imbecility or insanity at the time of the commission of the act should
absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of will, because mere abnormality of his mental
faculties does not exclude imputability.
Schizophrenia pleaded by appellant has been described as a chronic mental disorder
characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by
hallucinations and delusions. In the findings of the case, testimonies negate complete destruction of
intelligence at the time of commission of the act charged which, in the current state of our case law, is
critical if the defense of insanity is to be sustained. The fact that appellant Rafanan threatened
complainant Estelita with death should she reveal she had been sexually assaulted by him, indicates, to
the mind of the Court, that Rafanan was aware of the reprehensible moral quality of that assault. In any
case, as already pointed out, it is complete loss of intelligence which must be shown if the exempting
circumstance of insanity is to be found.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, and ordered the appellant to
pay moral damages amounting to P30,000.
