The Supreme Court of the Philippines has acquitted a mother previously convicted of parricide in the death of her five-year-old daughter, ruling that her diagnosed schizophrenia exempted her from criminal liability.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the Court’s Third Division reversed earlier rulings of lower courts, finding that the woman was legally insane at the time of the incident.

The case stemmed from an incident in which the mother jumped off a bridge into a river while carrying her child. She survived after being rescued, but the child’s body was recovered the following day.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals had earlier convicted the mother, concluding that she intended to harm her daughter.

The High Court, however, overturned these findings, stressing that her mental condition prevented her from understanding the nature and consequences of her actions.

Citing Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the Court ruled that insanity, when sufficiently proven, exempts an accused from criminal responsibility.

The justices found that medical evidence established the woman’s long-standing schizophrenia, a psychiatric disorder that impairs a person’s perception of reality.

Psychiatrists who testified said the mother exhibited paranoia and delusions at the time of the incident, believing she was under imminent threat.

The ruling noted that jurisprudence requires proof that insanity existed at the time of the act, was medically supported, and rendered the accused incapable of appreciating its wrongfulness—all of which were met in this case.

Despite her acquittal, the Court held the mother civilly liable and ordered her to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.

The tribunal also directed authorities to transfer her from the Correctional Institution for Women to the National Center for Mental Health, where she will remain under medical supervision pending further orders.

The ruling underscores that while mental illness may absolve criminal liability, it does not erase civil responsibility arising from the act.