SC acquits schizophrenic mother over child’s death

JUSTICE takes kindly to people who have lost control of their mental faculties.
PHOTOGRAPH courtesy of SC

JUSTICE takes kindly to people who have lost control of their mental faculties.
PHOTOGRAPH courtesy of SC
The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) on Friday underscored the critical role of local government…

If other teams will have it their way, they want Ateneo de Manila University to see action in Season 89 of the…
Despite pulling off a shock victory over world No. 3 Puerto Rico, the Philippines failed to keep its medal hopes alive,…
A ₱P91.2-million procurement for 80 vans for deployment to barangays in Laoag City has sparked a legal dispute after…

ILOILO CITY — Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. assured farmers in Western Visayas that the government…
The Supreme Court (SC) 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 written by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the Court’s Third Division overturned earlier rulings by lower courts, finding that the woman was legally insane at the time of the incident.
The case arose from a tragic episode in which the mother jumped off a bridge into a river while holding 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.
However, the High Court reversed these findings, emphasizing that her mental condition prevented her from understanding the nature and consequences of her actions.
Citing Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, 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 perception of reality.
Psychiatrists who testified before the Court said the mother exhibited paranoia and delusions at the time of the incident, believing she was under imminent threat.
The ruling noted that established jurisprudence requires proof that insanity existed during the commission of the act, was medically supported, and rendered the accused incapable of appreciating its wrongfulness — all of which were satisfied in the case.