0% found this document useful (0 votes)
59 views3 pages

People Vs Gimena Feb 6 1931

The defendant Juan N. Gimena was charged with parricide for attacking his wife with a bolo. He claimed the attack occurred while he was sleepwalking. The court did not accept sleepwalking as a defense on its own, only as part of an insanity defense. After observation, no evidence of sleepwalking was found for the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, finding the defendant guilty of parricide and sentencing him to prison.

Uploaded by

KM Han
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
59 views3 pages

People Vs Gimena Feb 6 1931

The defendant Juan N. Gimena was charged with parricide for attacking his wife with a bolo. He claimed the attack occurred while he was sleepwalking. The court did not accept sleepwalking as a defense on its own, only as part of an insanity defense. After observation, no evidence of sleepwalking was found for the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, finding the defendant guilty of parricide and sentencing him to prison.

Uploaded by

KM Han
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

10/4/23, 12:36 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 055

[No. 33877. February 6, 1931]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff


and appellee, vs, JUAN N. GIMENA, defendant and
appellant.

CRIMINAL LAW; PARRICIDE; SOMNAMBULISM AS


DEFENSE.—The defense that the offense charged was
committed by the accused during the prevalence of, or in a
state of, somnambulism is not well taken by this court other
than that embraced in a plea of insanity.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of


Cebu. Borromeo Veloso, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
C. de G'. Alvear for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

OSTRAND, J.:

The defendant Juan N. Gimena is charged with the crime


of parricide. It appears from the evidence that on the
morning of April 9, 1930, in the municipality of Ronda,
605

VOL. 55, FEBRUARY 6, 1931 605


People vs. Gimena

Province of Cebu, the defendant helped his father-in-law,


Gregorio Diana, in cleaning bamboo. After having finished
the cleaning he went home and upon arriving there he
found his wife Crispina Diana and a child 2 weeks of age
sleeping together on the floor. Shortly afterwards Gregorio
Diana heard his daughter, the defendant's wife, cry for
help. He went to the defendant's house which was close to
his own and there found the defendant attacking Crispina
with a bolo. With the assistance of Teodulo Gimena, a
brother of the defendant, Gregorio succeeded in disarming
the def endant and tied him to a post of the house. The
matter was then reported to the authorities and the justice

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018af66653d18826fff6000d00d40059004a/p/ARY915/?username=Guest 1/3
10/4/23, 12:36 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 055

of the peace, the chief of police, a sanitary inspector and a


policeman appeared on the scene. The justice of the peace
asked the def endant why he had attacked his wife e and
received the answer that it was because she had given the
sum of P2.70 to one Apolinar Sereño whom he, the
defendant, suspected of illicit relations with the wife. A few
hours later on the same day Crispina Diana died and the
examination subsequently made disclosed ten wounds in
different parts of her body.
After trial the court below found the defendant guilty of
parricide and considering in his favor the mitigating
circumstances of obfuscation uscation and lack of
instruction, sentenced him to suffer fourteen years and
eight months and one day of cadena temporal with the
accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the costs.
From this judgment the defendant appealed.
The appellant's argument in his favor is that he was in a
state of somnambulism when he attacked his wife. We do
not think that this theory can serve as a defense in the
present case. By order of the trial court the defendant was
placed under observation for some time by Dr. Luis B.
Gomez, but the doctor apparently did not discover any
somnambulism on the part of the defendant. A defense of
that character must be proven and such proof is lacking in
this case.
606

606 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED


Herederos del finado Benito Lopez vs. Isabela Sugar Co.

"The defense that the offense charged was committed by the


accused during the prevalence of or in a state of somnambulism
has been recognized; but the latest holding of courts is to the
effect that it does not constitute a defense other than that
embraced in a plea of insanity." (Wharton's Criminal Law, vol. 1,
p. 574.)

We can find no error in the decision of the court below and


the appealed judgment is therefore affirmed with the costs
against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, ViHamor, Johns,


Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018af66653d18826fff6000d00d40059004a/p/ARY915/?username=Guest 2/3
10/4/23, 12:36 AM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 055

_____________

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018af66653d18826fff6000d00d40059004a/p/ARY915/?username=Guest 3/3

You might also like