WILLPOWER were to be considered
in accused-appellant's favor, it
CANNOT be a basis for CHANGING
THE NATURE OF THE CRIMES NOR FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY LOWER THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
Accused-appellant contends that even assuming his insanity was not sufficiently proven, the Court should convict him of homicide only because the defense has proven that he has an illness which diminishes the exercise of his willpower without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
This contention is WITHOUT MERIT. At the outset, the PRESENCE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CRIME. It CAN ONLY AFFECT THE IMPOSABLE PENALTY, depending on the kind of penalty and the number of attendant mitigating circumstances.
While the evidence of accused-appellant DOES NOT SHOW that he was COMPLETELY DEPRIVED OF INTELLIGENCE OR CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS when he committed the crime, there is SUFFICIENT INDICATION that he was suffering from SOME IMPAIRMENT OF HIS MENTAL FACULTIES; thus, he may be CREDITED WITH THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DIMINISHED WILLPOWER.
X x x."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
JONAS PANTOJA Y ASTORGA, Accused-Appellants
G.R. No. 223114, November 29, 2017.
