PEOPLE v.

FORMIGONES

FACTS:

In the month of Nov. 1946, Abelardo was living on his farm in Camarines Sur w/ his
wife, Julia Agricola & their 5 children. From there they transferred in the house of his half-
brother, Zacarias Formigones in the same municipality to find employment as harvesters of
palay. After a month, Julia was sitting at the head of the stairs of the house when Abelardo, w/o
previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house & stabbed
his wife Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right lung & causing a severe hemorrhage
resulting in her death. Abelardo then took his dead wife & laid her on the floor of the living room
& then lay down beside her. In this position, he was found by the people who came in response
to the shouts made by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones.

The motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement, he used
to have quarrels with his wife for reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother,
Zacarias; that he suspected the 2 were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his
wife had become indifferent to him. During the preliminary investigation, the accused pleaded
guilty. At the case in the CFI, he also pleaded 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 was rather strange & that he behaved like an insane person, at times he would remain
silent, walk around stark naked, refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc... The appeal is
based merely on the theory that the appellant is an IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal
liability under RPC A12.

ISSUE:

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

HELD:

No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, although he was

feebleminded, 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 imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC
A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived 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 was not
feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric,
or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. A man who could
feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to the extent of killing his wife who he
suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in 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 he believed her faithless. Furthermore, in his written statement, he
readily admitted that he killed his wife, & at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate said
written statements, thus saving the government all the trouble & expense of catching him &
securing his conviction.

But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation (having killed his 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 with half of any
preventive imprisonment he has undergone (because of the 2 mitigating circumstances)