Case In Point
Case Digest
That on or about the 9th day of February, 1994, in the Municipality of Pasig,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, being them members of the PNP, conspiring and confederating
Page | 1
together and mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously kidnap one Richard Buama, a 17 year old minor and boarded
him in a Red car bearing License plate No. CGZ 835 against his will thus depriving him
of his freedom of liberty (sic), brought him to Tanay, Rizal in a safe house and there
subjected him to extreme/brutal physical violence, and thereafter with abuse of superior
strength and evident premeditation hacked and bludgeoned/clubbed said Richard
Buama who thereby sustained mortal wounds which directly caused his death.
Trial Court Ruling:
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City, finding accused-appellants
Elpidio Mercado y Hernando and Aurelio Acebron y Adora guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of kidnapping with murder and imposing upon each of them the
DEATH PENALTY, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that the awards of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages are
DELETED and accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay jointly and severally to
Lourdes Vergara the amount of P3,510.00 as reimbursement for the expenses she
incurred for the victim's wake and funeral.
Page | 2
death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used
in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more
than the mere extinguishment of life.' Would the lack in particularity then as to the
details involved in the execution by lethal injection render said law 'cruel, degrading or
inhuman'? The Court believes not. For reasons hereafter discussed, the implementing
details of R.A. No. 8177 are matters which are properly left to the competence and
expertise of administrative officials." [19]
As to the contention that the re-imposition of the death penalty violates
international treaty obligations, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the Court explained:
"Indisputably, Article 6 of the Covenant enshrines the individual's right to life.
Nevertheless, Article 6(2) of the Covenant explicitly recognizes that capital punishment
is an allowable limitation on the right to life, subject to the limitation that it be imposed
for the most serious crimes.' Pursuant to Article 28 of the Covenant, a Human Rights
Committee was established and under Article 40 of the Covenant, States Parties to the
Covenant are required to submit an initial report to the Committee on the measures they
have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized within the Covenant and on the
progress made on the enjoyment of those rights within one year of its entry into force for
the State Party concerned and thereafter, after five years. On July 27, 1982, the Human
Rights Committee issued General Comment No. 6 interpreting Article 6 of the Covenant
stating that '(while) it follows from Article 6(2) to (6) that State parties are not obliged to
abolish the death penalty totally, they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular, to
abolish it for other than the 'most serious crimes.' Accordingly, they ought to consider
reviewing their criminal laws in this light and, in any event, are obliged to restrict the
application of the death penalty to the 'most serious crimes.' The article strongly
suggests (pars. 2[2] and [6]) that abolition is desirable. x x x. The Committee is of the
opinion that the expression 'most serious crimes' must be read restrictively to mean that
the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure. Further, The Safeguards
Guaranteeing Protection of Those Facing the Death Penalty adopted by the Economic
and Social Council of the United Nations declare that the ambit of the term 'most serious
crimes' should not go beyond intentional crimes, with lethal or other extremely grave
consequences.
"The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1966,
and signed and ratified by the Philippines on December 19, 1966 and August 22, 1989,
respectively. The Optional Protocol provides that the Human Rights Committee shall
Page | 4
xxx
xxx
Page | 5
crimes,' for the same was never intended by said law to be the yardstick to determine
the existence of compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Fittingly, thus, what R.A.
No. 7659 states is that 'the Congress, in the interest of justice, public order and rule of
law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes,
finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes.'" [24]
Indeed, today, even members of the Court who originally dissented from the majority
ruling sustaining the validity of Republic Act No. 7659 agree on the imposition of the
death penalty without in the least changing their view about the constitutionality of the
penalty.
As we did in People vs. Godoy 321 Philippine 279, [25] we restate mankind's
age-old observation and experience on the penological and societal effect of capital
punishment: "If it is justified, it serves as a deterrent; if injudiciously imposed, it
generates resentment."
Page | 7
As can be gleaned from the above case, the contention which favors the death
penalty is grounded on two main premises, (1) Deterrence and (2) Retribution. These
premises however do not remain to be undisputed.
The following discussions will show the various arguments and counter
arguments on death penalty as culled out from local1 and international2 literatures.
The Pros
ARGUMENT 1: DETERRENCE
The death penalty prevents future murders.
Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from
unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should
use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If
murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice
before killing for fear of losing their own life.
This is the very same contention of a Philippine Senator. Senate Deputy Minority
Leader Vicente Sotto III disputed the claim of critics that the death penalty will not
prevent or reduce the commission of heinous crimes, and that its revival favors the rich.
The influx of heinous crimes committed poses an alarming situation in the
country nowadays, he said in his explanatory note in the bill.
The indiscriminate and horrendous brutality happening everywhere rightfully and
justifiably compels the government to resort to the ultimate criminal penalty provided for
by no less than our constitution- the death penalty. The imposition of life imprisonment
proves to be a non-deterrent against criminality, said Sotto.
This was consistent , he said, with the rationale of R.A. 7659 or the Death
Penalty Law, which provides that death penalty is appropriately necessary due to the
1
2
http://www.mb.com.ph/sotto-insists-on-death-penalty-reimposition/
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/
Page | 8
alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives
and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nations efforts towards
sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has
undermined the peoples faith in the Government and the latters ability to maintain
peace and order in the country.
In the international arena, for years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see
if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the
results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis
which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were
spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have
been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.
Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is
only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is
actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The
fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower
murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence.
States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death
penalty.
Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who
has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical
demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely
to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything
else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts.
Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty
may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the
death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life
sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life
sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by
anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to
special risks."
Finally, the death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly
speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is
prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them
from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a
deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent
future crime.
Page | 9
REBUTTAL TO DETERRENCE:
The death penalty is not a proven deterrent to future murders.
The death penalty does not deter crime effectively. The death penalty lacks the
deterrent effect which is commonly referred to by its advocates. As recently stated by
the General Assembly of the United Nations, there is no conclusive evidence of the
deterrent value of the death penalty (UNGA Resolution 65/206). It is noteworthy that in
many retentionist states, the effectiveness of the death penalty in order to prevent crime
is being seriously questioned by a continuously increasing number of law enforcement
professionals.
Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders
bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming
conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no
more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been
widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern
University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is
brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more
murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on
deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have
lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to
countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than
the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.
The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders
either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a
possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed
in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted
impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas
Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those
executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in
most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol
abuse."
There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent
than the threat of life imprisonment. A survey of the former and present presidents of
the country's top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts
Page | 10
rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death
penalty.
Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are
less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now
have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never
be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.
ARGUMENT 2: RETRIBUTION
A just society requires the death penalty for the taking of a life.
When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that
balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the
murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder
is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.
Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained
that it is proper to take an "eye for an eye" and a life for a life.
Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which
preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer's crime (and
closure to the ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no
more victims.
For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is
applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is
the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on
protecting lives.
Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the
need for retribution in one case: "In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and
made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed.
The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV,
family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die."
REBUTTAL TO RETRIBUTION:
The death penalty is not a just response for the taking of a life.
Page | 11
Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to
inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society
demand a more measured response.
The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a
system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws
and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a
complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of
revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing
executions sanctions killing as a form of 'pay-back.'
Many victims' families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution
to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain.
For example, Bud Welch's daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in
1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible
crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing "is simply vengeance; and it was
vengeance that killed Julie.... Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no
place in our justice system."
The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our
society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist.
Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in
light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of
murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones
with the fewest resources to defend themselves.
Page | 12
The Cons
University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors.
When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death
and 7% were completely acquitted.
Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a
result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois
were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed,
after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that
one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find the true killer, who
confessed to the crime on videotape. The innocent man who was released was very
fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not
because of the justice system.
Page | 13
In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the
justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the
death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to
advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later,
many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied
to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high
that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.
Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges,
knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great
precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a
preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society's
needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and
irrevocable punishment.
REBUTTAL TO INNOCENCE
Executing the innocent is a rare but acceptable risk of the death penalty.
There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since
increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the
1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent
people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If
improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific
evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the
need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.
Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from
death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone's conviction
is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he
is actually innocent.
If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant
clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just
delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system
of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent
individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent
person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.
Page | 15
In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And
even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks
commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use
of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death
sentence.
Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow
that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even
if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers
of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be
able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic
problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.
Conclusion
Despite all the seemingly valid arguments and counter arguments presented
above, the presenters collectively stand against death penalty. We so agree wholly to
the various counter arguments and rebuttals culled out from different authorities
/sources against death penalty.
In our efforts to pursue and develop a culture of life, it seems that the death
penalty is one more practice, which is contrary to the sanctity of human life. Everyone
has an inalienable human right to life, even those who commit murder; sentencing a
person to death and executing them violates that right. Human life is valuable. Human
life is so valuable that even the worst murderers should not be deprived of the value of
their lives. The value of the offender's life cannot be destroyed by the offender's bad
conduct - even if they have killed someone.
Capital punishment is an action where death is used to resolve the moral
problems of crime and violence. It is a vehicle of violence, which adds to the already
staggering violence which permeates our world. The death penalty communicates the
disvalue that there is no place for love, compassion and pardon.
The death penalty compromises this profound value: the inviolable dignity of the
human person. Proponents of capital punishment seek to escape this principle. In truth,
the death penalty does not provide for the ending of the culture of violence and culture
of death. It affirms the message that it is morally correct to kill a criminal because
Page | 16
he/she killed another person. Indeed, capital punishment is part of a dynamic process,
which dehumanizes. Actions that dehumanize lead to more actions of dehumanization.3
In the words of Pope John Paul II, The history of our time has shown in a tragic
way the danger which results from forgetting the truth about the human person. The
death penalty does not respect human rights. It is an action of the State which denies
the value that all persons, without exception, are equal in dignity and worth. Modern
sensibilities point to an urgent desire for a more civilized society. Subjective thinking
and feeling cannot be used for judging what is good or bad. This cannot be the criteria
for the progress of a society. There is a higher order and law which all persons must
obey: We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)4
The right to life is not a choice. We must embrace the totality of human life, which
includes the protection of people wounded by sin and who need the compassion and
forgiveness of God. God is merciful even when he punishes, put a mark on Cain, lest
any who came upon him should kill him. (Genesis 4:15) He thus gave him a distinctive
sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from
those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abels death. Not even a
murderer loses his personal dignity and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is
precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth.
(Evangelium Vitae (EV), #9)5
While punishment is necessary under just law, taking a life for a life only
perpetuates the cycle of violence. Rehabilitation and humane unconditional lifeimprisonment are moral alternatives, which will help protect society from violent
offenders of human life and the public order. They are instruments, which conform to
the moral order for a culture of life. They lessen the fuel for revenge and aversion.
Those who thirst for revenge may experience the illusion of satisfaction, but this
never lasts long. The short-term effects of the death penalty may satisfy the human
impulse to seek revenge, but its long-term effects add to the suffering of the loved ones,
of offenders and victims alike.
Therefore,
if non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect peoples safety from the
aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the
http://www.misacor-usa.org/index.php/social-justice-articles/1043-the-death-penalty-an-act-against-thesanctity-of-human-life
4
http://www.misacor-usa.org/index.php/social-justice-articles/1043-the-death-penalty-an-act-against-thesanctity-of-human-life
5
Ibid
Page | 17
concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the
human person. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2267.)6
Ibid
Page | 18