G.R. No. 37673 - MARCH 1933 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 37673March 31, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Potenciano Taneo G.R. No. 36966March 31, 1933 Alfonso Severino vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. 36965March 31, 1933 Philippine National Bank vs. Matias Atiles, et al. G.R. No. 36059March 31, 1933 In re: Cocepcion Gerona Ignacio Arroyovs. Jacoba Gerona, et al. G.R. No. 35840March 31, 1933 Francisco Bastida vs. Menzi & Co., et al. G.R. No. 36994March 30, 1933 Emilio Boada vs. Juan Posadas G.R. No. 37045March 29, 1933 Beatriz Soloria vs. Manila Railroad Company G.R. No. 37044March 29, 1933 Consolacion Junio vs. Manila Railroad Company G.R. No. 37337March 28, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio Borjal G.R. No. 37720March 27, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Ursula Sensano, et al. G.R. No. 37459March 27, 1933 Pablo del Rosario vs. Valentin Mallari, et al. G.R. No. 38344March 24, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Trinidad G.R. No. 37379March 18, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. , et al. G.R. No. 37374March 18, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Embalido G.R. No. 37331March 18, 1933 Fred M. Harden, et al. vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, et al. G.R. No. 37737March 17, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Flaviano Flores, et al. G.R. No. 37765March 14, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Remedios Avelino de Linao G.R. No. 34937March 13, 1933 Concepcion Vidal de Roces, et al. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. G.R. No. 36078March 11, 1933 Valeriana Velayo Bernardo vs. Miguel Siojo G.R. No. 37019March 8, 1933 Paz de los Santos, et al. vs. Gregorio C. Javier G.R. No. 38953March 7, 1933 Fausto Barredo, et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 38008March 7, 1933 Manila Yellow Taxicab Company, Inc., et al. vs. Julio Danon G.R. No. 37048March 7, 1933 Manuela Barretto Gonzalez vs. Augusto C. Gonzalez, et al. G.R. No. 36992March 7, 1933 Director of Lands vs. Rufino Abad, et al. G.R. No. 37712March 6, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Esteban Mones, et al. G.R. No. 36858March 6, 1933 Justa Afable, et al. vs. Singer Sewing Machine Company G.R. No. 38082March 4, 1933 Northern Luzon Transportation, Inc. vs. Santiago Sambrano G.R. No. 37754March 4, 1933 People of the Philippines vs. Silvino Valdez G.R. No. 37107March 4, 1933 Yu Pian vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 37056March 4, 1933 Ng Hay Yam vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 36547March 4, 1933 Rita Garchitorena Viuda de Centenera vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 36385March 4, 1933 Rita Garchitorena Viuda de Centenera vs. Hermogenes P. Ibias, et al. G.R. No. 37321March 3, 1933 Inocencio Tan Sima vs. Dolores Hacbang G.R. No. 37160March 2, 1933 E. Watch vs. Lim Chai Seng G.R. No. 37136March 1, 1933 Manila Electric Company vs. Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. G.R. No. 36806March 1, 1933 La Compaña General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. G.L. Marcelino, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Potenciano Taneo Alfonso Severino vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Matias Atiles, et al. In re: Cocepcion Gerona Ignacio Arroyovs. Jacoba Gerona, et al. Francisco Bastida vs. Menzi & Co., et al. Emilio Boada vs. Juan Posadas Beatriz Soloria vs. Manila Railroad Company Consolacion Junio vs. Manila Railroad Company People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio Borjal People of the Philippines vs. Ursula Sensano, et al. Pablo del Rosario vs. Valentin Mallari, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Trinidad People of the Philippines vs. , et al. People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Embalido Fred M. Harden, et al. vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Flaviano Flores, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Remedios Avelino de Linao Concepcion Vidal de Roces, et al. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. Valeriana Velayo Bernardo vs. Miguel Siojo Paz de los Santos, et al. vs. Gregorio C. Javier Fausto Barredo, et al. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Manila Yellow Taxicab Company, Inc., et al. vs. Julio Danon Manuela Barretto Gonzalez vs. Augusto C. Gonzalez, et al. Director of Lands vs. Rufino Abad, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Esteban Mones, et al. Justa Afable, et al. vs. Singer Sewing Machine Company Northern Luzon Transportation, Inc. vs. Santiago Sambrano People of the Philippines vs. Silvino Valdez Yu Pian vs. Insular Collector of Customs Ng Hay Yam vs. Insular Collector of Customs Rita Garchitorena Viuda de Centenera vs. Director of Lands, et al. Rita Garchitorena Viuda de Centenera vs. Hermogenes P. Ibias, et al. Inocencio Tan Sima vs. Dolores Hacbang E. Watch vs. Lim Chai Seng Manila Electric Company vs. Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. La Compaña General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. G.L. Marcelino, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 37673             March 31, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
POTENCIANO TANEO,defendant-appellant.

Carlos S. Tan for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

AVANCEÑA,C.J.:

Potenciano Tadeo live with his wife in his parent's house of the barrio of Dolores, municipality of Ormoc, Leyte. On January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and visitors were entertained in the house. Among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, he wounded her in the abdomen. Potenciano Taneo attacked Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao and tried to attack his father after which he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife who was then seven months pregnant, died five days later as a result of her wound, and also the foetus which was asphyxiated in the mother's womb.

An information for parricide was filed against Potenciano Taneo, and upon conviction he was sentenced by the trial court toreclusion perpetuawith the accessory penalties, to indemnity the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500 and to pay the costs. From this sentence, the defendant appealed.

It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime the defendant had a quarrel over a glass of "tuba" with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla, who invited him to come down to fight, and when he was about to go down, he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of the crime, it was noted that the defendant was sad and weak, and early in the afternoon he had a severe stomachache which made it necessary for him to go to bed. It was then when he fell asleep. The defendant states that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet, by reason of which he got up; and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down, he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. Then he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way.

The evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have any trouble with his wife, but that he loved her dearly. Neither did he have any dispute with Tanner and Malinao, or have any motive for assaulting them.

Our conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.

In arriving at this conclusion, we are taking into consideration the fact that the apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that simply they are not known to us, for we cannot probe into depths of one's conscience where they may be found, hidden away and inaccessible to our observation. We are also conscious of the fact that an extreme moral perversion may lead a man commit a crime without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. But under the special circumstances of the case, in which the victim was the defendant's own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into consideration the fact that the defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose house and under whose protection he lived, besides attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we find not only a lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but also motives for not committing said acts.

Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is also of the same opinion. The doctor stated that considering the circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of an hallucination and not in his right mind.

We have thus far regarded the case upon the supposition that the wound of the deceased was direct result of the defendant's act performed in order to inflict it. Nevertheless we may say further that the evidence does not clearly show this to have been the case, but that it may have been caused accidentally. Nobody saw how the wound was inflicted. The defendant did not testify that he wounded his wife. He only seemed to have heard her say that she was wounded. What the evidence shows is that the deceased, who was in the sala, intercepted the defendant at the door of the room as he was coming out. The defendant did not dream that he was assaulting his wife but he was defending himself from his enemies. And so, believing that his wife was really wounded, in desperation, he stabbed himself.

In view of all these considerations, and reserving the judgment appealed from, the courts finds that the defendant is not criminally liable for the offense with which he is charged, and it is ordered that he be confined in the Government insane asylum, whence he shall not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would no longer constitute a menace, with costsde oficio. So ordered.

Street, Ostrand, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.