The Supreme Court finalized a 44-year prison sentence for Faustino MS, the man convicted of killing his wife and his daughter in their home. He attacked them as they slept, cutting their throats after striking them with a sledgehammer. The court affirmed the penalties that reflected the gravity of two murders carried out within the family setting, each attached to a gender-based aggravating factor. He admitted during the trial to killing the two women, aged 56 and 24, asserting that the act occurred during an uncontrollable moment. The following day, he notified his own relatives, who then reported him to authorities.
The decision underscores the brutality of the crimes and notes the grotesque nature of the acts as a clear affront to conscience and will. It rejects any notion that the subject could be considered to have a change of soul or a mental state that would excuse the acts. The court clarifies that evil, as discussed by psychiatric experts, is not an inherently psychotic category. Rather, it describes individuals who knowingly commit crimes and possess the will and capacity to cause harm without fitting a psychotic diagnosis.
At trial, the jury found that the defendant killed his wife and daughter in response to their status as women and as an act of domination after previously displaying an authoritarian attitude. He exercised his perceived physical superiority and imposed his will, leading to the murders. The sentence imposed was 22 years for each crime. The court applied the gender aggravating factor to the case, acknowledging that the phenomenon has appeared in other similar offenses. This pattern reflects a persistent sense of possessiveness toward women that warrants examination through a gendered lens. The daughter is seen as part of an indirect extension of domination, as both victims were women.
The Supreme Court emphasizes that the defendant failed to establish any physical or psychological bond with the victims other than the intent to end their lives. The author’s behavior demonstrated an ongoing pattern of authoritarian conduct toward those under his influence. The outcome shows not only the act of killing but also the disproportionate and deliberate manner in which the crimes were carried out, illustrating a sense of mastery and ownership that motivated the crime. The court notes that the facts reveal the reasons behind the offense and attribute the decisive factor to the act of ending life, revealing how the crimes targeted the two women and the manner in which the acts were executed. This analysis highlights the gravity and premeditation behind the offenses and the impact on the victims and their families. Source: Supreme Court.