Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
95
1/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
criminal cases, after the sentence has been pronounced and the
period for reopening the same has elapsed, the court cannot
change or alter its judgment, as its jurisdiction has terminated . . .
When in cases of appeal or review the cause has been returned
thereto for execution, in the event that the judgment has been
affirmed, it performs a ministerial duty in issuing the proper
order. But it does not follow from this cessation of
_______________
*
EN BANC.
97
97
2/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
98
3/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
99
4/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
100
5/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
101
death penalty, falls short of the strict norm set forth by the
Constitution. I and some of my brethren on the Court, who hold
similarly, have consistently expressed this stand in the
affirmance by the Court of death sentences imposed by Regional
Trial Courts.
Courts Judgments The rule of immutability of final and
executory judgments admits of settled exceptionsconcededly, the
Court may suspend the execution of a final judgment when it
becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when
supervening events warrant it.The doctrine has almost
invariably been that after a decision becomes final and executory,
nothing else is further done except to see to its compliance since
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
102
7/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Theodore O. Te for petitioner.
Adviento, Mallonga, Adviento Law Offices for private
complainant Rodessa Baby R. Echegaray.
RESOLUTION
PUNO, J.:
For resolution are public respondents Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court dated
January 4, 1999 temporarily restraining the execution of
petitioner and Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration. It is the submission of public respondents
that:
(1) The Decision in this case having become final and
executory, its execution enters the exclusive ambit
of authority of the executive authority. The
issuance of the TRO may be construed as trenching
on that sphere of executive authority
(2) The issuance of the temporary restraining order x x
x creates dangerous precedent as there will never
be an end to litigation because there is always a
possibility that Congress may repeal a law
(3) Congress had earlier deliberated extensively on the
death penalty bill. To be certain, whatever question
may now be raised on the Death Penalty Law
before the present Congress within the 6month
period given by this Honorable Court had in all
probability been fully debated upon x x x
(4) Under the time honored maxim lex futuro, judex
praeterito, the law looks forward while the judge
looks at the past, x x x
103
103
8/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
104
9/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 US 165, 172 59 S. Ct. 134, 138 83 L. ed. 104
[1938].
f
105
105
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
and that the same has, on November 6, 1998 become final and
executory and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of
Judgment.
Manila, Philippines.
Clerk of Court
By: (SGD) TERESITA G. DIMAISIP
Acting Chief
Judicial Records Office
106
11/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
Acuna, 63 O.G. 358 Gabaya v. Hon. R. Mendoza, 113 SCRA 400 Bueno
Industrial and Development Corp. v. Encaje, 104 SCRA 388.
5
Ibid., pp. 1415 citing Molina v. dela Riva, 8 Phil. 569 Behn Meyer &
Co. v. McMicking, 11 Phil. 276 Warmer Barnes & Co. v. Jaucian, 13 Phil.
4 Espiritu v. Crossfield, 14 Phil. 588 Mata v. Lichauco, 36 Phil. 809 De la
Costa v. Cleofas, 67 Phil. 686 Omar v. Jose, 77 Phil. 703 City of Butuan v.
Ortiz, 113 Phil. 636 De los Santos v. Rodriguez, 22 SCRA 551 City of
Cebu v. Mendoza, 66 SCRA 174.
107
107
12/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
108
108
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
13/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
109
14/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
110
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
11
12
111
16/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
x x xx x xx x x
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers.
x x xx x xx x x
(5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integration of the
Bar, which, however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the
Batasang Pambansa. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights.
49 SCRA 22.
112
112
17/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
113
18/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
114
19/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
115
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
20/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
The text and tone of this provision will not yield to the
interpretation suggested by the public respondents. The
provision is simply the source of power of the President to
grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit
fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. It
also provides the authority for the President to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the
members of the Congress. The provision, however, cannot
be interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the
enforcement of their decisions after their finality. In truth,
an accused who has been convicted by final judgment still
possesses collateral rights and these rights can be claimed
in the appropriate courts. For instance, a death convict who
becomes insane after his final conviction
cannot be
15
executed while in a state of insanity. As observed by
Antieau, today, it is generally assumed that due process of
law will prevent the government from executing the death
sentence upon
a person who is insane at the time of
16
execution. The suspension of such a death sentence is
undisputably an exercise of judicial power. It is not a
usurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its
effect is the
__________________
14
15
16
116
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
21/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
117
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
22/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
118
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
23/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
119
24/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
20
120
25/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
121
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
Let me state at the outset that I have humbly maintained
that Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the
death penalty, falls short of the strict norm set forth by the
Constitution. I and some of my brethren on the Court, who
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
26/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
122
27/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
cases of appeal or review the cause has been returned thereto for
execution, in the event that the judgment has been affirmed, it
performs a ministerial duty in issuing the proper order. But it
does not follow from this cessation of functions on the part of the
court with reference to the ending of the cause that the judicial
authority terminates by having then passed completely to the
executive. The particulars of the execution itself, which are
certainly not always included in the judgment and writ of
execution, in any event are absolutely under the control of the
judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person
of the convict except to provide for carrying out the penalty and to
pardon.
Getting down to the solution of the question in the case at bar,
which is that of execution of a capital sentence, it must be
accepted as a hypothesis that postponement of the date can be
requested. There can be no dispute on this point. It is a well
known principle that, notwithstanding the order of execution and
the executory nature thereof on the date set or at the proper time,
the date therefor can be postponed, even in sentences of death.
Under the common law this postponement can be ordered in three
ways: (1) by command of the King (2) by discretion (arbitrio) of
the court and (3) by mandate of the law. It is sufficient to state
this principle of the common law to render impossible the
assertion in absolute terms that after the convict has once been
placed in jail the trial court can
______________
1
Intermediate Appellate Court, 178 SCRA 645 Lipana vs. Development Bank of
Rizal, 154 SCRA 257 Lee vs. De Guzman, 187 SCRA 276 Bachrach Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128349, 25 September 1998.
2
29 Phil. 267.
123
123
not reopen the case to investigate the facts that show the need for
postponement. If one of the ways is by direction of the court, it is
acknowledged that even after the date of the execution has been
fixed, and notwithstanding the general rule that after the Court of
First Instance has performed its ministerial duty of ordering the
execution, functus est officio suo, and its part is ended, if however
a circumstance arises that ought to delay the execution, there is an
imperative duty to investigate the emergency and to order a
postponement. x x x.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
28/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
124
29/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
125
30/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
126
31/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
SEPARATE OPINION
The Anti Death Penalty Task Force of the Free Legal Assistance
127
32/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
The bulk of jurisprudence precludes raising an issue for the first time
only on appeal. See, for instance, Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court
of Appeals, 249 SCRA 303, October 13, 1995 Manila Bay Club
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 715, July 11, 1995 Securities
and Exchange Commission vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 738, July 21,
1995.
However,
the
Court
resolved
to
tackle
the
question
of
In People vs. Muoz, 170 SCRA 107, February 9, 1989 the Court,
128
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
33/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
129
129
34/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
Congressional
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
35/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
130
11
Which became effective on December 31, 1993, per People vs. Burgos,
234 SCRA 555, 569, July 29, 1994 People vs. Godoy, 250
131
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
36/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
131
14
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
37/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
132
133
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
38/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
133
circumstances which the prosecution must prove before courts can impose
the extreme penalty. Just the same however, the law did not explain why
said circumstances would make the crimes heinous. Neither did it set
forth the compelling reasons therefor.
134
134
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
39/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
743:
MR. SUAREZ. The Gentleman advisedly used the words heinous
crimes, whatever is the pronunciation. Will the Gentleman give
examples of heinous crimes? For example, would the head of an
organized syndicate in dope distribution or dope smuggling fall within
the qualification of a heinous offender such as to preclude the
application of the principle of abolition of death penalty?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President. That is one of the possible
crimes that would qualify for a heinous crime. An
135
135
40/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
136
41/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
137
42/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
138
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
43/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
44/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
139
140
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
45/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
1993, Volume III, No. 50, January 27, 1993, pp. 176177.
26
141
46/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
Witness,
for
instance,
this
interesting
exchange
between
142
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
47/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
See, for instance, People vs. Sinatao, 249 SCRA 554, 571, October 25,
1995, and People vs. Pidia, 249 SCRA 687, 702703, November 10, 1995.
143
143
48/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of
31
law. This primary right of the people to enjoy lifelife at
its fullest, life in dignity and honoris not only reiterated
by the 1987 Charter but is in fact fortified by its other pro
life and prohuman rights provisions. Hence, the
Constitution values the dignity of every human32 person and
guarantees full respect for 33 human rights, expressly
prohibits any form of torture which is arguably a lesser
penalty than death, emphasizes the individual right to life
by giving protection to the life of the34 mother and the
unborn from the moment of conception and establishes
the peoples
rights to health, a balanced ecology and
35
education.
This Constitutional explosion of concern for man more
than property, for people more than the state, and for life
more than mere existence augurs well for the strict
application of the constitutional limits against the revival
of death penalty as the final and irreversible exaction of
society against its perceived enemies.
Indeed, volumes have been written about individual
rights to free speech, assembly and even religion. But the
most basic and most important of these rights is the right
to life. Without life, the other rights cease in their
enjoyment, utility and expression.
This opinion would not be complete without a word on
the wrenching fact that the death penalty militates against
the poor, the powerless and the marginalized. The Profile
of 165 Death Row
Convicts submitted by the Free Legal
36
Assistance Group highlights this sad fact:
_______________
31
32
33
34
35
36
Appellant dated September 26, 1996 filed by the Free Legal Assistance
Group in People vs. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996.
144
144
37
186 persons
49/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
37
death by trial courts since the effectivity of RA 7659. The Philippine Star
issue of December 9, 1996, page 17, however reports that, quoting Sen.
Ernesto Herrera, the total number of death row inmates has gone up to
267, as of November, 1996, of whom more than one half (139) are rape
convicts. Some major dailies (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star,
Manila Standard) in their February 3, 1997 issue up the death row figure
to 300, as of the end of January 1997, with 450 as the probable number at
the end of 1997.
145
145
50/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
146
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
51/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
147
52/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
148
53/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
149
54/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
150
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
55/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
151
151
56/57
7/20/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNONATEDVOLUME301
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015608c416d8df397b18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
57/57