Attempted Acts of Lasciviousness by a Person with Mental Illness: Criminal Liability and Defense in Philippine Law

Introduction

In Philippine criminal law, acts of lasciviousness represent a serious offense against chastity, often involving lewd or indecent behavior that violates the dignity and privacy of another person. When such acts are attempted but not consummated, the legal analysis shifts to the realm of inchoate crimes, where intent and overt acts become central. Complicating this further is the involvement of a perpetrator suffering from mental illness, which may invoke defenses that exempt or mitigate criminal liability. This article explores the interplay between these elements under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and relevant jurisprudence, providing a comprehensive examination of liability, defenses, and procedural considerations in the Philippine context.

Acts of lasciviousness are penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, which states: "Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prisión correccional." This refers to circumstances such as force, threat, or abuse of authority, similar to those in rape cases but without penetration. An attempted act occurs when the offender commences the commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all acts of execution due to causes independent of their will (Article 6, RPC).

Mental illness enters the equation as a potential exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the RPC, which provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless they acted during a lucid interval. The burden of proving insanity lies with the defense, and it must be established that the mental condition deprived the accused of reason or free will at the time of the offense.

Elements of Attempted Acts of Lasciviousness

To establish criminal liability for attempted acts of lasciviousness, the prosecution must prove the following elements derived from Articles 6 and 336 of the RPC:

Intent to Commit Lascivious Acts: The offender must have the specific intent (dolo) to perform lewd acts that outrage the victim's modesty. This is distinguished from general intent crimes, requiring proof of lascivious purpose, such as touching intimate parts without consent.
Overt Acts: There must be direct, unequivocal acts toward the commission of the crime, such as attempting to touch or expose the victim in a sexual manner. Mere preparation (e.g., planning or lurking) does not suffice for an attempt; the acts must be proximate to consummation.
Non-Consummation Due to External Causes: The crime is not completed because of intervention by the victim, third parties, or other factors not attributable to the offender's desistance. For instance, if the victim resists and escapes before the act is fully executed, it qualifies as an attempt.

Penalties for attempted felonies are generally two degrees lower than for consummated ones (Article 51, RPC). For acts of lasciviousness, which carries prisión correccional (6 months to 6 years), an attempt would be punishable by arresto mayor (1 to 6 months) or a fine, depending on the circumstances.

In cases involving minors or persons with disabilities, the offense may escalate under Republic Act No. 7610 (Child Protection Act) or Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act), potentially classifying it as child abuse or gender-based violence, with higher penalties. However, the core analysis remains rooted in the RPC for attempts.

Criminal Liability in the Context of Mental Illness

Mental illness does not automatically absolve liability; it must meet strict criteria to serve as an exempting circumstance. Under Philippine law:

Definition of Insanity: Jurisprudence defines insanity as a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, rendering the person incapable of discerning right from wrong (People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 1991). It is not mere abnormality or eccentricity but a severe mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe depression, that impairs cognition and volition.
Timing of the Mental Illness: The insanity must exist at the exact time of the offense. If the accused was sane before or after but insane during the act, exemption applies. Lucid intervals in chronic conditions like schizophrenia can negate the defense if the crime occurred during one.
Burden of Proof: Unlike other defenses, insanity is an affirmative defense where the accused must prove it by clear and convincing evidence (People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, 2000). This often requires expert testimony from psychiatrists, medical records, and witness accounts of the accused's behavior.

If mental illness is not proven to the extent of full exemption, it may still mitigate liability under Article 13 of the RPC as an analogous circumstance to illness diminishing willpower, reducing the penalty by one degree.

In attempted acts, the mental state is crucial. If the offender's mental illness prevents forming the requisite intent, no liability attaches. For example, if a person with severe dementia attempts a lascivious act due to confusion, lacking criminal intent, they may be exempt. However, if the illness only impairs judgment partially, liability persists, though mitigated.

The Insanity Defense: Procedural and Evidentiary Aspects

Invoking insanity in a case of attempted acts of lasciviousness follows standard criminal procedure:

Plea and Pre-Trial: The defense must be raised early, often during arraignment or pre-trial, to allow for psychiatric evaluation. Courts may order commitment to a mental institution for examination under Rule 28 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Evidence Required:
- Medical Evidence: Psychiatric reports diagnosing the condition, such as DSM-5 criteria for mental disorders, and linking it to the offense.
- Lay Witnesses: Testimonies from family, friends, or bystanders describing erratic behavior contemporaneous with the act.
- Prior History: Records of hospitalization, medication, or previous incidents showing chronic illness.
Court's Role: Judges assess the defense skeptically, as it is easily feigned (People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 144340, 2003). The presumption is sanity; rebuttal requires overwhelming proof.

If insanity is upheld, the accused is acquitted but may be committed to a mental health facility under Article 12, RPC, and Republic Act No. 11336 (Mental Health Act of 2018), which emphasizes treatment over punishment. This civil commitment ensures public safety while addressing the illness.

Jurisprudential Insights

Philippine Supreme Court decisions provide guidance on these issues:

In People v. Rafanan (G.R. No. 54135, 1991), the Court clarified that for insanity to exempt, it must be total deprivation of reason, not mere emotional distress. Applied to lascivious acts, partial impairment (e.g., due to intoxication or temporary rage) does not suffice.
People v. Formigones (G.R. No. L-3246, 1950) established that insanity must be proven by the defense, with examples of acceptable evidence like hereditary mental illness or bizarre conduct.
In cases like People v. Taneo (G.R. No. 88551, 1993), involving attempts, the Court emphasized that mental illness affecting intent negates the attempt stage, as there is no felonious purpose.
Under RA 7610, if the victim is a child, mental illness defenses are scrutinized more rigorously, but the same RPC principles apply (People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229284, 2018).

Recent trends incorporate mental health awareness, influenced by the Mental Health Act, encouraging courts to consider rehabilitation. However, in sex-related offenses, public policy favors victim protection, making successful insanity pleas rare.

Challenges and Policy Considerations

Several challenges arise in these cases:

Stigma and Access: Mental health resources are limited in the Philippines, hindering proper diagnosis and defense preparation, especially in rural areas.
Victim Impact: Even if exempted, the act traumatizes victims, leading to calls for mandatory treatment and civil remedies.
Preventive Measures: Policies under the Mental Health Act promote community-based care to prevent such incidents, integrating law enforcement with health services.

Reform suggestions include specialized mental health courts or enhanced forensic psychiatry training to better handle these intersections.

Conclusion

Attempted acts of lasciviousness by persons with mental illness highlight the tension between accountability and compassion in Philippine law. While the RPC provides clear frameworks for liability and exemption, successful defenses hinge on robust evidence of insanity at the time of the offense. Jurisprudence reinforces a cautious approach, ensuring that exemptions do not undermine justice for victims. As mental health discourse evolves, the legal system must balance punitive measures with therapeutic interventions, fostering a more humane application of the law. This nuanced area underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between legal, medical, and social sectors to address root causes and prevent recurrence.