You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SIA TEB BAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

2004-03-17
DAVIDE JR., C.J.
understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's act is presumed voluntary.[23] It is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously,[24] for the moral and legal presumption is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind,[25] or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[26] Thus, the presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code is that everyone is sane. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by evidence of insanity, which under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code exempts a person from criminal liability.[27] He who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it,[28] for insanity as a defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance.[29] An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but
2001-07-19
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the determination of culpability of every criminal actor, voluntariness is an essential element. Without this, the imputation of criminal responsibility and the imposition of the corresponding penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. The human mind is an entity, and understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but depends to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's acts is presumed voluntary,[11] for every person is presumed to be of sound mind.[12] It is based on the moral and legal presumption that freedom and intelligence constitutes the normal condition of a person.[13] The presumption, however, may be overthrown by factors such as insanity, which exempts a person from criminal liability.[14] Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.[15] The accused must be so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent.[16] He must be deprived of reason and act without least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will.[17] In determining a defendant's competency to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate, communicate with, and assist his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed.[18]
2001-03-26
MENDOZA, J.
The trial court's reliance on the rule that criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act is untenable because such presumption only holds in the absence of proof to the contrary.[32] The facts of the case indubitably show the absence of intent to kill on the part of the accused-appellants. Indeed, the trial court's findings can be sustained only if the circumstances of the case are ignored and the Court limits itself to the time when accused-appellants undertook their unauthorized "treatment" of the victim. Obviously, such an evaluation of the case cannot be allowed.
2000-09-28
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All the elements concur in this case. The properties taken consisted of pieces of jewelry, a radio, rice, money and other valuables, all of which clearly belonged to the Sucilans. The properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be presumed from the unlawful taking.[23] In addition, Romeo Sucilan was killed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
2000-06-19
PUNO, J.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that every person is of sound mind[43] and that all acts are voluntary.[44] The moral and legal presumption under our law is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[45] This presumption, however, may be overthrown by other factors; and one of these is insanity which exempts the actor from criminal liability.[46]