This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| claims that he is not guilty because he is insane. 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.[30] It is, therefore, incumbent upon accused's counsel to prove that his client was not in his right mind or was under the influence of a sudden attack of insanity immediately before or at the time he executed the act attributed to him.[31] Since insanity is a condition of the mind, it is not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man can know what is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.[32] Thus, | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The issue of insanity is a question of fact for insanity is a condition of the mind, not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man would know what goes on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with appellant, or who has rational basis to conclude that appellant was insane based on the witness' own perception of appellant, or who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.[15] | |||||