Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 188320

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

- versus - VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.
HONORIO TIBON y DEISO,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:

June 29, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:

Parricide is the most terrible and unnatural of crimes.[1]

It is said that, in Romulus time, there was no penalty for parricide because it was
considered a crime too evil ever to be committed. While parricide in those days
referred to the murder of ones own parent or ascendant, the killing of ones own
offspring, which the terms modern meaning now includes, is equally horrendous
and deserving of the stiffest penalty.

This is an appeal from the February 25, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01406, which affirmed the August 2, 2005
Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 98-169605-06 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 26 in Manila. The RTC found accused-appellant Honorio Tibon guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of parricide.

The Facts

Two Informations charged Tibon of the following:

Criminal Case No. 98-169605

That on or about the 12th day of December, 1998, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
person of one KEEN GIST TIBON Y SUMINGIT, 3 years of age and his
legitimate son, by then and there stabbing him several times on the chest with a
bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon the said KEEN GIST TIBON Y
SUMINGIT stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death
thereafter.

Criminal Case No. 98-169606

That on or about the 12th day of December, 1998, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
person of one REGUEL ALBERT TIBON Y SUMINGIT, 2 years of age and his
legitimate son, by then and there stabbing him several times on the chest with a
bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon the said REGUEL ALBERT TIBON Y
SUMINGIT stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death
thereafter.

At his arraignment, Tibon entered a plea of not guilty. A trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented witnesses Senior Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Jose M.

Bagkus; Francisco Abella Abello, Jr., Tibons neighbor; Medico-Legal Officer Dr.
Emmanuel Aranas of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory; Gina
Sumingit, Tibons 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-appellants
parents and siblings on the third floor of a rented house in C.M.
Recto, Manila.[3] Due to financial difficulties, Gina went to Hong Kong to work as
a domestic helper, leaving accused-appellant with custody of their two
children.[4] 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, at around 11:30 p.m., accused-appellants

mother[6] and his siblings, among them Zernan and Leilani, went to accused-
appellants 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 called long distance on December 13, 2008 and asked about KenKen and
Reguel. When told about the stabbing incident, she immediately flew back
to Manila the next day.[9]
Dr. Aranas acted on a written request from the Western Police District
(WPD) Homicide Division and the Certificates of Identity and Consent for
Autopsy signed by KenKen and Reguels aunt Leilani Tibon. His examination of
the victims cadavers showed that Reguel, who was attacked while facing the
assailant, sustained abrasions on the forehead, cheeks, and chin and five (5) stab
wounds, four (4) of which were caused by a sharp bladed instrument and fatal. The
doctor further observed that for a two-year old to be attacked so violently, the killer
must have been extremely angry.[10]
The body of three-year old KenKen sustained three (3) stab wounds on the left side
of the chest, which were likewise fatal, as these pierced his heart and left lung.[11]
WPD Police Investigator SPO3 Bagkus interviewed Tibon while he was
undergoing treatment from stab wounds on the chest and head injuries under police
security at the JoseReyes Medical Center. After being informed by SPO3 Bagkus
of his constitutional rights, Tibon confided that he was despondent and voluntarily
admitted to stabbing KenKen and Reguel.[12] Tibons sister Leilani, likewise, told
SPO3 Bagkus that Tibon was responsible for the killings. [13]

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, Tibons 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 fallo of the CA decision states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 2 August 2005 decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 26) in Criminal Case No. 98-169605-06
finding accused-appellant Honorio Tibon y Deiso guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of parricide on two (2) counts, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as to penalty. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, the penalty
of death imposed upon accused-appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua,
without eligibility for parole.

SO ORDERED.[17]

Tibon maintains his innocence on appeal to this Court.

On August 3, 2009, this Court notified the parties that they may submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their willingness to
submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.

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 Tibons
testimony, Tibons 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, Tibons non-recollection of the stabbing incident does not
prove his insanity and amounts merely to a general denial. 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 Tibons 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]

This appeal admits that parricide has indeed been committed. The defense,
however, banks on Tibons insanity to exempt him from punishment.

The defense has unsatisfactorily shown that Tibon was insane when he stabbed his
two young sons. Article 12 of the Code states:

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 Tibons 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]

It is apt to recall People v. Ocfemia[25] where this Court ruled that the professed
inability of the accused to recall events before and after the stabbing incident, as in
the instant case, does not necessarily indicate an aberrant mind but is more
indicative of a concocted excuse to exculpate himself. It is simply too convenient
for Tibon to claim that he could not remember anything rather than face the
consequences of his terrible deed.

The requirements for a finding of insanity have not been met by the defense. As
the appellate court noted, Tibons 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 ones 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 formers 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.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
 RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

[1]
Cassiodorus, The Letters of Cassiodorus.
[2]
CA rollo, p.86.
[3]
Id at 89.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id at 87.
 [6]
The name of accused-appellant's mother was not mentioned in the records.
[7]
Id at 85-86.
[8]
CA rollo, p. 27.
[9]
Id. at 26.
[10]
Id. at 25.
[11]
Id. at 25-26.
[12]
Id. at 24.
[13]
Id. at 23.
[14]
Id. at 26.
[15]
Id. at 28.
[16]
Id. at 29. Penned by Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr.
[17]
Rollo, p. 11. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate
Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Isaias P. Dicdican.
[18]
People v. Castro, G.R. No. 172370, October 6, 2008.
[19]
People v. Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999, 308 SCRA 651.
[20]
People v. Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000, 328 SCRA 158; citing People v. Catanyag, G.R.
No. 103974, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 293.
[21]
People v. Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003, 413 SCRA 132.
[22]
People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 654.
[23]
People v. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 142.
[24]
People v. Robios, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 581; citing People v. Condino, GR No.
130945, November 19, 2001.
[25]
G.R. No. 126135, October 25, 2000, 344 SCRA 315.
[26]
People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184343, March 2, 2009.
[27]
People v. Regalario, G.R. No. 174483, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 738, 761.
[28]
People v. Paycana, Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 657.
[29]
People v. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009; see People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9,
1998, 292 SCRA 186.
[30]
People v. Domingo, supra note 26.
[31]
People v. Panado, G.R. No. 133439, December 26, 2000, 348 SCRA 679, 690-691.
[32]
People v. Regalario, supra note 27; citing People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649, December 6, 2006, 510
SCRA 531, 547, People v. Orbita, G.R. No. 172091, March 31, 2008; People v. Balobalo, G.R. No. 177563,
October 18, 2008.
[33]
People v. Paycana, Jr., supra note 28; citing People v. Domingo Arnante y Dacpano, G.R. No. 148724,
October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 155, 161
Del Rosario: Battered woman syndrome as a defense in parricide Wednesday, November
23, 2016 By ATTY. MARIA DEE A. SEARES-DEL ROSARIO PROTECTING WOMEN AND
CHILDREN A CASE of parricide was filed against a woman who killed her husband. While
the woman admitted to killing her husband, she raised the battered woman syndrome as
her self-defense. The Supreme Court ruled that the killing of the husband was not fully
justified in this case. In order that self-defense will prosper, there must be an actual,
imminent and real threat before the killing and not just an imaginary threat. In this case,
there was an interval between the aggression of the husband upon the wife and her act of
killing him. She was able to run away from her husband’s aggression and retreat to her
children’s bedroom. So the husband already stopped his violent attack upon her and went
to bed. The Court deemed that the danger from her husband already ended and there was
no more threat on the wife. However, while the Court did not consider her battered woman
syndrome as a justifying circumstance, the Court ruled it as a mitigating circumstance. The
Court determined that the repeated battery upon the wife produced psychological paralysis,
which diminished her will power. Although it did not affect her consciousness of her actions,
the experts explained that the battery lessened her will, intelligence and intent. Secondly,
the violent attack upon her before the killing and the fact that she was pregnant produced
passion and obfuscation. Based on the Revised Penal Code, the Court ruled that these
should very well be considered as mitigating circumstances in the wife’s act of killing her
husband. (People of the Philippines vs. Genosa, G.R. 135981 [2004])

Read more: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/lifestyle/2016/11/24/del-rosario-battered-

woman-syndrome-defense-parricide-511182
Follow us: @sunstaronline on Twitter | SunStar Philippines on Facebook