The spin now is that the killer cop has mental health issues, obviously trying to set up an "insanity" defense. Here's the thing--"insanity" as an exempting circumstance under Art. 12 is not a medical term but a legal concept. "Insanity" does not equate to "crazy." [thread]
Insanity as a defense must be proven by an accused in court. It means, though, that the accused must first be charged--it cannot be administratively determined, i.e., at the level of the DOJ or the PNP.
It is defined as a "complete deprivation of freedom, intelligence, and will" at the time of the felony, meaning that the capacity to form a criminal intent is completely impaired, thus removing the element of criminal intent that is essential to a felony under Article 3.
When an exempting circumstance like insanity is proven, there is a felony but no felon. Spinning the act as an insane act does not mean that the cop shouldn't be charged for two counts of murder because there is still civil liability that must be determined.
Similar to "nanlaban" cases, which rely on self-defense under Article 11 RPC, the process requires that the killers must first be charged and detained (murder is bailable only by judicial discretion) subject to the accused's proof of the Article 12 defense.
To put it plainly, a plea of "insanity" does not warrant an administrative or non-judicial exoneration. It is an exempting circumstance that must be proven in court. [End]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
