PEOPLE v.

FORMIGONES

[87 Phil. 658 (1950)]

Nature:

Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Camarines Sur finding AbelardoFormigones guilty of parricide &
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnifythe heirs of the deceased in the amount of P2K, and
to pay costs.

Facts:

In the month of Nov. 1946, Abelardo was living on his farm in Camarines Surw/ his wife, Julia Agricola &
their 5 children. From there they transferred in the houseof his half-brother, Zacarias Formigones in the
same municipality to find employmentas harvesters of palay. After a month, Julia was sitting at the head
of the stairs of thehouse when Abelardo, w/o previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his
bolofrom the wall of the house & stabbed his wife Julia, in the back, the blade penetratingthe right lung
& causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death. Abelardo thentook his dead wife & laid her on
the floor of the living room & then lay down besideher. In this position, he was found by the people who
came in response to the shoutsmade by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones.The motive was
admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement, heused to have quarrels with his wife
for reason that he often saw her in the companyof his brother, Zacarias; that he suspected the 2 were
maintaining illicit relationsbecause he noticed that his wife had become indifferent to him. During
thepreliminary investigation, the accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the CFI, he alsopleaded guilty but
didn’t testify. His counsel presented the testimony of 2 guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was
confined to the effect that his conduct wasrather strange & that he behaved like an insane person, at
times he would remainsilent, walk around stark naked, refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc...
Theappeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an IMBECILE & thereforeexempt from
criminal liability under RPC A12.

Issue:

WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime, thusexempted from criminal
liability

Held:

No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, although he wasfeebleminded, he is not an
imbecile as he could still distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. In order that a person
could be regarded as an imbecilew/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability,
he must bedeprived completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of committing
the crime. (Note that definition is same as insanity)As to the strange behavior of the accused during his
confinement, assuming it wasnot feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being
feeblemindedor eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed
hiswife. A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to theextent of killing his
wife who he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief thatin doing so, he was vindicating his
honor, could hardly be regarded as an imbecile.WON the suspicions were justified, is of little or no
importance. The fact is that hebelieved her faithless. Furthermore, in his written statement, he readily
admitted thathe killed his wife, & at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate said
writtenstatements, thus saving the government all the trouble & expense of catching him & securing his
conviction.But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation (having killedhis wife in a
jealous rage) & feeblemindedness.

Judgment:

In conclusion, appellant is found guilty of parricide & the lower court’s judgment is hereby affirmed w/
the modification that appellant will be credited withhalf of any preventive imprisonment he has
undergone (because of the 2 mitigatingcircumstances)