At the arraignment on January 6, 1995, accused-

appellants counsel, the Public Attorneys Office, filed an

Urgent Motion to Suspend Arraignment and to Commit

EN BANC Accused to Psychiatric Ward at Baguio General Hospital.

It was alleged that accused-appellant could not properly
and intelligently enter a plea because he was suffering
from a mental defect; that before the commission of the
[G.R. No. 130487. June 19, 2000]
crime, he was confined at the psychiatric ward of the
Baguio General Hospital in Baguio City. He prayed for the
suspension of his arraignment and the issuance of an
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
order confining him at the said hospital. [3]
vs. ROBERTO ESTRADA, accused-appellant.
The motion was opposed by the City Prosecutor. The trial

DECISION court, motu proprio, propounded several questions on

accused-appellant. Finding that the questions were
PUNO, J.:
understood and answered by him intelligently, the court
denied the motion that same day.[4]
This is an automatic review of the death penalty imposed
The arraignment proceeded and a plea of not guilty was
on accused-appellant by the Regional Trial Court, Branch
entered by the court on accused-appellants behalf.[5]
44, Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. 94-00860-D.[1] We
nullify the proceedings in the court a quo and remand The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses,
the case for proper disposition. namely: (1) Dr. Tomas Cornel, the Assistant Health Officer
of Dagupan City who issued the death certificate and
In an Information dated December 29, 1994,
conducted the autopsy on the victim; (2) Crisanto
accused-appellant Roberto Estrada y Lopez was charged
Santillan, an eyewitness to the incident; (3) SPO1 Conrado
with the crime of murder for the killing of one Rogelio P.
Francisco, one of the policemen who apprehended
Mararac, a security guard. The Information reads:
accused-appellant; and (4) Rosalinda Sobremonte, the
victims sister. The prosecution established the following
That on or about the 27th day of December 1994 in the
facts:
City of Dagupan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, In the morning of December 27, 1994, at the St. Johns
ROBERTO ESTRADA Y LOPEZ, being then armed with a Cathedral, Dagupan City, the sacrament of confirmation
butchers knife, with intent to kill one ROGELIO P. was being performed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of
MARARAC with treachery and committed in a holy place Dagupan City on the children of Dagupan. The cathedral
of worship, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and was filled with more than a thousand people. At 11:00
criminally, attack, assault and use personal violence upon A.M., nearing the close of the rites, the Bishop went down
the latter by stabbing him, hitting him on vital parts of his the altar to give his final blessing to the children in the
body with the said weapon, thereby causing his death front rows. While the Bishop was giving his blessing, a
shortly thereafter due to Cardiorespiratory Arrest, man from the crowd went up and walked towards the
Massive Intrathoracic Hemorrhage, Stab Wound as per center of the altar. He stopped beside the Bishops chair,
Autopsy Report and Certificate of Death both issued by turned around and, in full view of the Catholic faithful, sat
Dr. Tomas G. Cornel, Assistant City Health Officer, this on the Bishops chair. The man was accused-
City, to the damage and prejudice of the legal heirs of appellant. Crisanto Santillan, who was assisting the
said deceased ROGELIO P. MARARAC in the amount of Bishop at the rites, saw accused-appellant. Santillan
not less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), approached accused-appellant and requested him to
Philippine currency, and other consequential damages. vacate the Bishops chair. Gripping the chairs armrest,
accused-appellant replied in Pangasinese: No matter
Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
what will happen, I will not move out! Hearing this,
Santillan moved away.[6]
Dagupan City, Philippines, December 29, 1994.[2]

1
Some of the churchgoers summoned Rogelio Mararac, penetrating. The edge of one side of the
the security guard at the cathedral. Mararac went near wound is sharp and pointed.
accused-appellant and told him to vacate the Bishops
2. Stab wound, antero-lateral aspect, distal 3rd,
chair. Accused-appellant stared intensely at the
arm, left, x x . The edge of one side of the
guard. Mararac grabbed his nightstick and used it to tap
wound is sharp and pointed.
accused-appellants hand on the armrest. Appellant did
not budge. Again, Mararac tapped the latters hand. Still INTERNAL FINDINGS
no reaction. Mararac was about to strike again when
suddenly accused-appellant drew a knife from his back, Massive intrathoracic, left, hemorrhage with perforation
lunged at Mararac and stabbed him, hitting him below of the upper and lower lobe of the left lung. The left
his left throat. Mararac fell. Accused-appellant went over pulmonary blood vessel was severely cut. [10]
the victim and tried to stab him again but Mararac After the prosecution rested its case, accused-appellant,
parried his thrust. Accused-appellant looked up and with leave of court, filed a Demurrer to Evidence. He
around him. He got up, went to the microphone and claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the crime of
shouted: Anggapuy nayan dia! (No one can beat me murder because there was no evidence of the qualifying
here!). He returned to the Bishops chair and sat on it circumstance of treachery; that there was unlawful
again. Mararac, wounded and bleeding, slowly dragged aggression by the victim when he tapped accused-
himself down the altar. [7]
appellants hand with his nightstick; and that accused-
Meanwhile, SPO1 Conrado Francisco, who was directing appellant did not have sufficient ability to calculate his
traffic outside, received a report of a commotion inside defensive acts because he was of unsound mind. [11]
the cathedral. Rushing to the cathedral, SPO1 Francisco The Demurrer to Evidence was opposed by the public
saw a man, accused-appellant, with red stains on his shirt prosecutor. He alleged that the accused pretended to be
and a knife in one hand sitting on a chair at the center of weak, tame and of unsound mind; that after he made the
the altar. He ran to accused-appellant and advised him to first stab, he furiously continued stabbing and slashing
drop the knife. Accused-appellant obeyed. He dropped the victim to finish him off undeterred by the fact that he
the knife and raised his hands. Thereupon, Chief was in a holy place where a religious ceremony was
Inspector Wendy Rosario, Deputy Police Chief, Dagupan being conducted; and the plea of unsound mind had
City, who was attending the confirmation rites at the already been ruled upon by the trial court in its order of
Cathedral, went near accused-appellant to pick up the January 6, 1995.[12]
knife. Suddenly, accused-appellant embraced Chief On February 21, 1995, a letter was sent by Inspector
Inspector Rosario and the two wrestled with each Wilfredo F. Valdez, Jail Warden of Dagupan City to the
other. Chief Inspector Rosario was able to subdue trial court. Inspector Valdez requested the court to allow
accused-appellant. The police came and when they accused-appellant, who was confined at the city jail, to be
frisked appellant, they found a leather scabbard tucked treated at the Baguio General Hospital to determine
around his waist. [8]
He was brought to the police station whether he should remain in jail or be transferred to
and placed in jail. some other institution.The other prisoners were allegedly
In the meantime, Mararac, the security guard, was not comfortable with appellant because he had been
brought to the hospital where he expired a few minutes exhibiting unusual behavior. He tried to climb up the jail
upon arrival. He died of cardio-respiratory arrest, roof so he could escape and see his family. [13]
massive, intra-thoracic hemorrhage, stab wound. [9] He As ordered by the trial court, the public prosecutor filed a
was found to have sustained two (2) stab wounds: one Comment to the jail wardens letter. He reiterated that the
just below the left throat and the other on the left mental condition of accused-appellant to stand trial had
arm. The autopsy reported the following findings: already been determined; unless a competent
government agency certifies otherwise, the trial should
EXTERNAL FINDINGS proceed; and the city jail warden was not the proper
person to determine whether accused-appellant was
1. Stab wound, along the parasternal line, level
mentally ill or not.[14]
of the 2nd intercostal space, left, 1 x 1

2
In an order dated August 21, 1995, the trial court denied physical and mental condition. [23] The medical and clinical
the Demurrer to Evidence.[15] Accused-appellant moved records consisted of the following: (1) letter of Dr. Alfredo
for reconsideration. Sy, Municipal Health Officer, Calasiao, Pangasinan to Dr.
While the motion for reconsideration was pending, on Jesus del Prado, Director, BGH referring accused-
February 26, 1996, counsel for accused-appellant filed a appellant for admission and treatment after a relapse of
Motion to Confine Accused for Physical, Mental and his violent behavior;[24] (2) the clinical cover sheet of
Psychiatric Examination. Appellants counsel informed the appellant at the BGH;[25] (3) the consent slip of appellants
court that accused-appellant had been exhibiting wife voluntarily entrusting appellant to the BGH; [26] (4) the
abnormal behavior for the past weeks; he would shout at Patients Record;[27] (5) the Consent for Discharge signed
the top of his voice and cause panic among the jail by appellants wife;[28] (6) the Summary and Discharges of
inmates and personnel; that appellant had not been appellant;[29] (7) appellants clinical case history; [30] (8) the
eating and sleeping; that his co-inmates had been admitting notes;[31] (9) Physicians Order Form;[32] (10) the
complaining of not getting enough sleep for fear of Treatment Form/ medication sheet;[33] and (11) Nurses
being attacked by him while asleep; that once, while they Notes.[34]
were sleeping, appellant took out all his personal effects
The trial court rendered a decision on June 23,
and waste matter and burned them inside the cell which
1997. It upheld the prosecution evidence and found
again caused panic among the inmates. Appellants
accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged and
counsel prayed that his client be confined at the National
thereby sentenced him to death, viz:
Center for Mental Health in Manila or at the Baguio
General Hospital.[16] Attached to the motion were two (2) WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Roberto Estrada y
letters. One, dated February 19, 1996, was from Inspector Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Pedrito Llopis, Jail Warden, Dagupan City, addressed to Murder and in view of the presence of the aggravating
the trial court judge informing him of appellants irrational circumstance of cruelty which is not offset by any
behavior and seeking the issuance of a court order for mitigating circumstance, the accused is sentenced to
the immediate psychiatric and mental examination of suffer the Death Penalty and to indemnify the heirs of the
accused-appellant. [17]
The second letter, dated February deceased in the amount of P50,000.00.
21, 1996, was addressed to Inspector Llopis from the
Bukang Liwayway Association, an association of inmates The accused is ordered to pay the sum of P18,870.00
in the Dagupan City Jail. The letter, signed by the representing actual expenses and P100,000.00 as moral
president, secretary and adviser of said association, damages.
informed the jail warden of appellants unusual behavior
and requested that immediate action be taken against SO ORDERED.[35]

him to avoid future violent incidents in the jail. [18] In this appeal, accused-appellant assigns the
On September 18, 1996, the trial court denied following errors:
reconsideration of the order denying the Demurrer to
I
Evidence. The court ordered accused-appellant to
present his evidence on October 15, 1996. [19]
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-
Accused-appellant did not take the witness
APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED,
stand. Instead, his counsel presented the testimony of Dr.
DESPITE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON
Maria Soledad Gawidan,[20] a resident physician in the
RECORD, SUPPORTING HIS PLEA OF INSANITY.
Department of Psychiatry at the Baguio General Hospital,
and accused-appellants medical and clinical records at
II
the said hospital.[21] Dr. Gawidan testified that appellant
had been confined at the BGH from February 18, 1993 to THE LOWER COURT LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

February 22, 1993 and that he suffered from THE STABBING TO DEATH OF ROGELIO MARARAC WAS
ATTENDED WITH TREACHERY AND AGGRAVATED BY
Schizophrenic Psychosis, Paranoid Typeschizophrenia,
CRUELTY, GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-
paranoid, chronic, paranoid type; [22]and after four (4)
days of confinement, he was discharged in improved

3
APPELLANTS PLEA OF INSANITY CANNOT BE In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a
CONSIDERED AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE. [36]
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not
criminally liable for a felony committed by him. [37] Under exclude imputability.[48] The accused must be so insane as
the classical theory on which our penal code is mainly to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent.[49] He
based, the basis of criminal liability is human free must be deprived of reason and act without the least
will.[38] Man is essentially a moral creature with an discernment because there is a complete absence of the
absolutely free will to choose between good and power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the
evil. [39]
When he commits a felonious or criminal act will.[50]
(delito doloso), the act is presumed to have been done Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity, he who
voluntarily, [40]
i.e., with freedom, intelligence and invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must
intent. [41]
Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held prove it by clear and positive evidence.[51] And the
accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding
unimpaired. [42]
the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law execution.[52]
presumes that every person is of sound mind [43] and that To ascertain a persons mental condition at the time of
all acts are voluntary. [44]
The moral and legal presumption the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
under our law is that freedom and intelligence constitute condition of his mind within a reasonable period both
the normal condition of a person. [45] This presumption, before and after that time. [53] Direct testimony is not
however, may be overthrown by other factors; and one required.[54] Neither are specific acts of derangement
of these is insanity which exempts the actor from criminal essential to establish insanity as a
liability.[46] defense.[55] Circumstantial evidence, if clear and
convincing, suffices; for the unfathomable mind can only
The Revised Penal Code in Article 12 (1) provides:
be known by overt acts. A persons thoughts, motives,

ART. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal and emotions may be evaluated only by outward acts to

liability.The following are exempt from criminal liability: determine whether these conform to the practice of
people of sound mind.[56]
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the In the case at bar, there is no direct proof that accused-
latter has acted during a lucid interval. appellant was afflicted with insanity at the time he killed
Mararac. The absence of direct proof, nevertheless, does
When the imbecile or an insane person has not entirely discount the probability that appellant was
committed an act which the law defines as a felony not of sound mind at that time. From the affidavit of
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one Crisanto Santillan[57] attached to the Information, there
of the hospitals or asylums established for persons are certain circumstances that should have placed the
thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to trial court on notice that appellant may not have been in
leave without first obtaining the permission of the full possession of his mental faculties when he attacked
same court. Mararac. It was highly unusual for a sane person to go up
to the altar and sit on the Bishops chair while the Bishop
An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless
was administering the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation to
he has acted during a lucid interval. If the court therefore
children in a jampacked cathedral. It goes against normal
finds the accused insane when the alleged crime was
and ordinary behavior for appellant, without sufficient
committed, he shall be acquitted but the court shall order
provocation from the security guard, to stab the latter at
his confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment
the altar, during sacramental rites and in front of all the
until he may be released without danger. An acquittal of
Catholic faithful to witness. Appellant did not flee, or at
the accused does not result in his outright release, but
least attempt to flee after the stabbing. He nonchalantly
rather in a verdict which is followed by commitment of
approached the microphone and, over the public address
the accused to a mental institution.[47]
system, uttered words to the faithful which no rational

4
person would have made. He then returned to the of mental deficiency is sufficient to justify such
Bishops chair and sat there as if nothing happened. suspension. The test is to be found in the question
whether the accused would have a fair trial, with the
Accused-appellants history of mental illness was
assistance which the law secures or gives; and it is
brought to the courts attention on the day of the
obvious that under a system of procedure like ours where
arraignment. Counsel for accused-appellant moved for
every accused person has legal counsel, it is not
suspension of the arraignment on the ground that his
necessary to be so particular as it used to be in England
client could not properly and intelligently enter a plea
where the accused had no advocate but himself. [60] In the
due to his mental condition. The Motion for Suspension
American jurisdiction, the issue of the accuseds present
is authorized under Section 12, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules
insanity or insanity at the time of the court proceedings is
on Criminal Procedure which provides:
separate and distinct from his criminal responsibility at

Sec. 12. Suspension of arraignment.The arraignment shall the time of commission of the act. The defense of

be suspended, if at the time thereof: insanity in a criminal trial concerns the defendants mental
condition at the time of the crimes commission. Present
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound insanity is commonly referred to as competency to stand
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to trial[61] and relates to the appropriateness of conducting
fully understand the charge against him and to plead the criminal proceeding in light of the defendants present
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his inability to participate meaningfully and effectively. [62] In
mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for competency cases, the accused may have been sane or
such purpose. insane during the commission of the offense which
relates to a determination of his guilt. However, if he is
(b) x x x. found incompetent to stand trial, the trial is simply
postponed until such time as he may be found
The arraignment of an accused shall be suspended if at
competent. Incompetency to stand trial is not a defense;
the time thereof he appears to be suffering from an
it merely postpones the trial.[63]
unsound mental condition of such nature as to render
In determining a defendants competency to stand trial,
him unable to fully understand the charge against him
the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend
and to plead intelligently thereto. Under these
his position, understand the nature and object of the
circumstances, the court must suspend the proceedings
proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a
and order the mental examination of the accused, and if
rational manner, and to cooperate, communicate with,
confinement be necessary for examination, order such
and assist his counsel to the end that any available
confinement and examination. If the accused is not in full
defense may be interposed.[64] This test is prescribed by
possession of his mental faculties at the time he is
state law but it exists generally as a statutory recognition
informed at the arraignment of the nature and cause of
of the rule at common law.[65] Thus:
the accusation against him, the process is itself a felo de
[I]t is not enough for the x x x judge to find that the
se, for he can neither comprehend the full import of the
defendant [is] oriented to time and place, and [has] some
charge nor can he give an intelligent plea thereto. [58]
recollection of events, but that the test must be whether
The question of suspending the arraignment lies he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer
within the discretion of the trial court. [59]
And the test to with a reasonable degree of rational understandingand
determine whether the proceedings will be suspended whether he has a rational as well as factual
depends on the question of whether the accused, even understanding of the proceedings against him. [66]
with the assistance of counsel, would have a fair trial. This There are two distinct matters to be determined under
rule was laid down as early as 1917, thus: this test: (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent
to provide his counsel with information necessary or
In passing on the question of the propriety of suspending
relevant to constructing a defense; and (2) whether he is
the proceedings against an accused person on the
able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his
ground of present insanity, the judges should bear in
relation to it.[67] The first requisite is the relation between
mind that not every aberration of the mind or exhibition
the defendant and his counsel such that the defendant

5
must be able to confer coherently with his counsel. The is insufficient. There must be evidence or circumstances
second is the relation of the defendant vis-a-vis the court that raise a reasonable doubt [76] or a bona fide
proceedings, i.e., that he must have a rational as well as a doubt[77] as to defendants competence to stand trial.
factual understanding of the proceedings. [68] Among the factors a judge may consider is evidence of
The rule barring trial or sentence of an insane person is the defendants irrational behavior, history of mental
for the protection of the accused, rather than of the illness or behavioral abnormalities, previous confinement
public.[69] It has been held that it is inhuman to require an for mental disturbance, demeanor of the defendant, and
accused disabled by act of God to make a just defense psychiatric or even lay testimony bearing on the issue of
for his life or liberty. [70]
To put a legally incompetent competency in a particular case.[78]
person on trial or to convict and sentence him is a
In the case at bar, when accused-appellant moved
violation of the constitutional rights to a fair trial [71] and
for suspension of the arraignment on the ground of
due process of law;[72] and this has several reasons
accuseds mental condition, the trial court denied the
underlying it.[73] For one, the accuracy of the proceedings
motion after finding that the questions propounded on
may not be assured, as an incompetent defendant who
appellant were intelligently answered by him. The court
cannot comprehend the proceedings may not appreciate
declared::
what information is relevant to the proof of his
innocence. Moreover, he is not in a position to exercise xxx

many of the rights afforded a defendant in a criminal

It should be noted that when this case was called, the
case, e.g., the right to effectively consult with counsel, the
Presiding Judge asked questions on the accused, and he
right to testify in his own behalf, and the right to confront
(accused) answered intelligently. As a matter of fact,
opposing witnesses, which rights are safeguards for the
when asked where he was born, he answered, in Tayug.
accuracy of the trial result. Second, the fairness of the
proceedings may be questioned, as there are certain
The accused could answer intelligently. He could
basic decisions in the course of a criminal proceeding
understand the questions asked of him.
which a defendant is expected to make for himself, and
one of these is his plea. Third, the dignity of the WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Urgent Motion to
proceedings may be disrupted, for an incompetent Suspend Arraignment and to Commit Accused to
defendant is likely to conduct himself in the courtroom in Psychiatric Ward at Baguio General Hospital, is hereby
a manner which may destroy the decorum of the court. DENIED.
Even if the defendant remains passive, his lack of
comprehension fundamentally impairs the functioning of SO ORDERED.[79]
the trial process. A criminal proceeding is essentially an The fact that accused-appellant was able to answer the
adversarial proceeding. If the defendant is not a questions asked by the trial court is not conclusive
conscious and intelligent participant, the adjudication evidence that he was competent enough to stand trial
loses its character as a reasoned interaction between an and assist in his defense. Section 12, Rule 116 speaks of an
individual and his community and becomes an invective unsound mental condition that effectively renders [the
against an insensible object. Fourth, it is important that accused] unable to fully understand the charge against
the defendant knows why he is being punished, a him and to plead intelligently thereto. It is not clear
comprehension which is greatly dependent upon his whether accused-appellant was of such sound mind as to
understanding of what occurs at trial. An incompetent fully understand the charge against him. It is also not
defendant may not realize the moral reprehensibility of certain whether his plea was made intelligently. The plea
his conduct. The societal goal of institutionalized of not guilty was not made by accused-appellant but by
retribution may be frustrated when the force of the state the trial court because of his refusal to plead. [80]
is brought to bear against one who cannot comprehend
The trial court took it solely upon itself to determine
its significance.[74]
the sanity of accused-appellant. The trial judge is not a
The determination of whether a sanity investigation or
psychiatrist or psychologist or some other expert
hearing should be ordered rests generally in the
equipped with the specialized knowledge of determining
discretion of the trial court. [75] Mere allegation of insanity

6
the state of a persons mental health. To determine the intellectual process but depends to a large degree upon
accused-appellants competency to stand trial, the court, emotional and psychological appreciation. [87] Thus, an
in the instant case, should have at least ordered the intelligent determination of an accuseds capacity for
examination of accused-appellant, especially in the light rational understanding ought to rest on a deeper and
of the latters history of mental illness. more comprehensive diagnosis of his mental condition
than laymen can make through observation of his overt
If the medical history was not enough to create a
behavior. Once a medical or psychiatric diagnosis is
reasonable doubt in the judges mind of accused-
made, then can the legal question of incompetency be
appellants competency to stand trial, subsequent events
determined by the trial court. By this time, the accuseds
should have done so. One month after the prosecution
abilities may be measured against the specific demands a
rested its case, the Jail Warden of Dagupan City wrote
trial will make upon him.[88]
the trial judge informing him of accused-appellants
If the mental examination on accused-appellant had
unusual behavior and requesting that he be examined at
been promptly and properly made, it may have served a
the hospital to determine whether he should remain in
dual purpose[89] by determining both his competency to
jail or be placed in some other institution. The trial judge
stand trial and his sanity at the time of the offense. In
ignored this letter. One year later, accused-appellants
some Philippine cases, the medical and clinical findings of
counsel filed a Motion to Confine Accused for Physical,
insanity made immediately after the commission of the
Mental and Psychiatric Examination. Attached to this
crime served as one of the bases for the acquittal of the
motion was a second letter by the new Jail Warden of
accused.[90] The crime in the instant case was committed
Dagupan City accompanied by a letter-complaint of the
way back in December 1994, almost six (6) years ago. At
members of the Bukang Liwayway Association of the city
this late hour, a medical finding alone may make it
jail. Despite the two (2) attached letters, [81] the judge
impossible for us to evaluate appellants mental condition
ignored the Motion to Confine Accused for Physical,
at the time of the crimes commission for him to avail of
Mental and Psychiatric Examination. The records are
the exempting circumstance of insanity. [91] Nonetheless,
barren of any order disposing of the said motion. The
under the present circumstances, accused-appellants
trial court instead ordered accused-appellant to present
competence to stand trial must be properly ascertained
his evidence.[82]
to enable him to participate in his trial meaningfully.
Dr. Gawidan testified that the illness of accused-
By depriving appellant of a mental examination, the trial
appellant, i.e., schizophrenia, paranoid type, is a lifetime
court effectively deprived appellant of a fair trial. The trial
illness and that this requires maintenance medication to
courts negligence was a violation of the basic
avoid relapses.[83] After accused-appellant was discharged
requirements of due process; and for this reason, the
on February 22, 1993, he never returned to the hospital,
proceedings before the said court must be nullified.
not even for a check-up.[84]
In People v. Serafica,[92] we ordered that the joint decision
Accused-appellant did not take the witness stand. His
of the trial court be vacated and the cases remanded to
counsel manifested that accused-appellant was waiving
the court a quo for proper proceeding. The accused, who
the right to testify in his own behalf because he was
was charged with two (2) counts of murder and one (1)
suffering from mental illness.[85] This manifestation was
count of frustrated murder, entered a plea of guilty to all
made in open court more than two (2) years after the
three charges and was sentenced to death. We found
crime, and still, the claim of mental illness was ignored by
that the accuseds plea was not an unconditional
the trial court. And despite all the overwhelming
admission of guilt because he was not in full possession
indications of accused-appellants state of mind, the
of his mental faculties when he killed the victim; and
judge persisted in his personal assessment and never
thereby ordered that he be subjected to the necessary
even considered subjecting accused-appellant to a
medical examination to determine his degree of insanity
medical examination. To top it all, the judge found
at the time of commission of the crime. [93]
appellant guilty and sentenced him to death!
Section 12, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional
Procedure speaks of a mental examination. [86]
The human Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City in Criminal Case No.
mind is an entity, and understanding it is not purely an 94-00860-D convicting accused-appellant Roberto

7
Estrada and sentencing him to death is vacated and the
case is remanded to the court a quo for the conduct of a
proper mental examination on accused-appellant, a
determination of his competency to stand trial, and for
further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Kapunan, Mendoza,

Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.