Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    62 People v. Gimena GR 33877, February 6, 1931

    Uploaded by

    GT
    The respondent killed his wife but was found guilty of parricide by the Trial Court. On appeal, the respondent argued he should be exempt from criminal liability due to insanity, claiming somnambulism caused him to kill his wife in his sleep. However, the medical expert found no evidence of somnambulism. The court affirmed the Trial Court's finding, as the respondent was unable to overcome the presumption of sanity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    62 People v. Gimena GR 33877, February 6, 1931

    Uploaded by

    GT
    175 views1 page
    The respondent killed his wife but was found guilty of parricide by the Trial Court. On appeal, the respondent argued he should be exempt from criminal liability due to insanity, claiming somnambulism caused him to kill his wife in his sleep. However, the medical expert found no evidence of somnambulism. The court affirmed the Trial Court's finding, as the respondent was unable to overcome the presumption of sanity.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent killed his wife but was found guilty of parricide by the Trial Court. On appeal, the respondent argued he should be exempt from criminal liability due to insanity, claiming somnambulism caused him to kill his wife in his sleep. However, the medical expert found no evidence of somnambulism. The court affirmed the Trial Court's finding, as the respondent was unable to overcome the presumption of sanity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    175 views1 page

    62 People v. Gimena GR 33877, February 6, 1931

    Uploaded by

    GT
    The respondent killed his wife but was found guilty of parricide by the Trial Court. On appeal, the respondent argued he should be exempt from criminal liability due to insanity, claiming somnambulism caused him to kill his wife in his sleep. However, the medical expert found no evidence of somnambulism. The court affirmed the Trial Court's finding, as the respondent was unable to overcome the presumption of sanity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    People v.

    Gimena   
    GR 33877, February 6, 1931   
       OTHER NOTES: 
    DISPOSITION: 
    Petitioner: People of the Philippines 
     
    Respondents: Juan Gimena 
    Affirmed the Trial Court. 
     
     
    SUMMARY:  
     
    The respondent killed his wife, and was unable to overthrow the presumption of 
    sanity.  
     
    DOCTRINE:  
    Art 12 (1) - An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a 
    lucid interval. 
     
    Exempting circumstances: There was a crime, but there was no criminal, due to the 
    circumstances that hinder the accused.  
     
    Insanity - must be proven as complete deprivation of intelligence, wherein one loses 
    reason. The presumption of sanity must be overthrown. The rationale behind this is 
    the absence of intelligence. 
     
     
     
    FACTS: 
    - On  April  9,  1930,  after  helping  his  father-in-law  clean  bamboo,  he  hacked 
    his wife, Crispina Diana, with a bolo while she was asleep.  
    - He was disarmed and tied by Gregorio and Teodulo (brother of Gimena) 
    - Respondent  claims  to  have  killed  her  due  to  her  illicit  relationship,  which 
    was adduced by her giving of P2.7 to Apolinar Serno. 
    - The  Trial  Court  found  him  guilty  of  parricide  and  sentenced him to cadena 
    temporal 
     
    ISSUE/S:  
    W/N Gimena should be privileged with an exempting circumstance. 
    RATIO: 
    - The  court  hinged  its  decision  on  the  findings  of  Dr.  Luis  Gomez  that  the 
    respondent  did  not  show  any  signs  of  somnambulism  —  contradictory  to 
    the respondent’s claim.  
    - Although  somnambulism  is  recognized,  it  must  not  only  be  proven  with 
    such proof, but it must also be embraced in insanity.  

    You might also like