Supreme Court Decision Review

Prepared for:

Hon. Justice Cicero D. Jurado Jr.

Professor
Prepared by:
Student
Date:

December 02, 2014

A. CASE REVIEW
G.R. No. 117472 7Feb 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
The SC rendered a decision in the instant case affirming the conviction of the
accused for the crime of raping his ten-year old daughter. The crime having been
committed sometime in April, 1994, during which time Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7659, commonly known as the Death Penalty Law, was already in effect, accused
was inevitably meted out the supreme penalty of death.
The accused timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration which focused on the
sinister motive of the victim's grandmother that precipitated the filing of the
alleged false accusation of rape against the accused. This was dismissed.
A supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prepared by the FLAG on behalf of
accused, after discharged of the former defense counsel.
In sum, the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raises two out of three (3)
main issues which beard importance to the case: (1) mixed factual and legal
matters relating to the trial proceedings and findings; (3) purely legal question of
the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7659.
ISSUES:
Whether or not there was due process of the law, in sentencing death penalty for an
accused convicted of rape of a minor, when the accused is a common law spouse of
the victims mother?
HELD:
Yes, the Court affirm the ruling of the lower court that correctly applied law in
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 in its automatic review and in its review of
the supplemental motion for reconsideration of the case.
The constitutionality of R.A. No. 7659 was upheld by majority decision.
RATIO:
The Death Penalty Law satisfies the compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes requirement by Section 19(1) Art III of the Constitution:
We have no doubt, therefore, that insofar as the element of heinousness is concerned,
R.A. No. 7659 has correctly identified crimes warranting the mandatory penalty of

death. As to the other crimes in R.A. No. 7659 punished by reclusion perpetua to
death, they are admittingly no less abominable than those mandatorily penalized by
death.
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 on the third clause of the preamble of R.A.No. 7659 :

WHEREAS, due to the 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;

According to the second clause of the preamble of R.A.No. 7659 heinous crimes
are defined as :
"x x x the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just,
civilized and ordered society."

B. CASE OPINION
The opinion shall be discussed in the following structure.
1.

Judicial Review

2.

Procedural Due process

3.

Substative Due process

4.

Summary of Opinion

1. JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Supreme Court is granted the power of judicial review under Section 5(2),(A)
of the Constitution. The requisite present for the exercise is :
4) That the constitutional question is unavoidable and the lis mota of the
case, where Lis mota literally means the cause of the suit or action. 1
The case at hand challenges the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7659 which could
decide the final sentence of the accused, hence a Supreme Court ruling is required.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81

2. PROCDURAL DUE PROCESS

The taking of life, liberty or property of a person by the State is protected by the
prescence of the Due Process of Law which the fair and reasonable opportunity
to be heard, to submit any evidence to ones defense and to seek reconsideration
of the ruling complained of 2 , under Article III, Section 1, of the 1987
Constitution.
Procedural Due Process in Court
For criminal cases, the rights to a court trial and right to counsel of the accused, to
answer for the charges under protected under Article III, Section 14, of the
Constitution.
3

All the requisites or conditions of procedural due process are present in this case .
The records further disclose that accused-appellant was given the fullest and
unhampered opportunity to confront the witnesses presented against him and to
present his own evidence for complete defense.
The accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded
against under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and
investigation, upon notice to him, with opportunity to be heard, and a judgment
awarded within the authority of the constitutional law, therefore he has had
procedural due process .
Also, the Court granted the public respondents' Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
and lifts the Temporary Restraining Order issued in its Resolution of January 4,
1999, through an automatic review of the conviction by the Supreme Court,
careful evaluation of the evidence and questions of law are made to determine the
merits of the accused-appellants case.
.

3. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

2

NFD International Manning Agency v. NLRC, GR No.116629, Jan 2009

In People v Dapitan, G.R.No. 90625 May 23, 1991, Due process is satisfied if the following
conditions are present:
(1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine
the matter before it;
(2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired by it over the person of the defendant or over
the property which is the subject of the proceeding;
(3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and
(4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

The other half of the twin requirement to obtain complete Due Process of
the law, before the State can have legitimately deprive its citizen his life, liberty
and property . The substantive due process requires that the law itself not merely
the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair reasonable and just.4
It is essential that the law-R.A. No.7659, by which the accused is
condemned, is constitutional.
a. Retributive justice is required
On the historical legislative records presentated in the decision, the
intention for retributive pupose of the Statute can be observed thus:
In his Sponsorship Speech, Representative Manuel R. Sanchez of Rizal ably essayed the
constitutional vesting in Congress of the power to re-impose the death penalty for compelling
reasons xxx.
As duly elected Representatives of our people, collectively, we ought to listen to our
constituents and heed their plea a plea for life, liberty and pursuit of their happiness under a
regime of justice and democracy, and without threat that their loves ones will be kidnapped,
raped or butchered.
But if such a misfortune befalls them, there is the law they could rely on for justice. A law
that will exact retribution for the victims. A law that will deter future animalistic behavior of
the criminal who take their selfish interest over and above that of society. A law that will deal a
deathblow upon all heinous crimes. (Emphasis added)

b. Retributive Justice demands proportionality of sentence to the

crime
Cruel punishment is defined as any punishment so disproportionate to the
offense as to shock the moral sense of the community5. In Philippine
jurisprudence, it is commiting another wrong by another wrong:
The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the
accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victims
6
suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.

Justice is defined as the constant and perpetual disposition to render every

man his due and also to distribute punishments to each one according to his
merits, observing a just proportion by comparing one person or fact with another,
4

Corona v United Harbor Pilots Assn, GR No. 111953 ,Dec 12, 1997

Blacks Law Dictionary, 1st Edition

People v Emelito Tayag, GR No. 134362, 27Feb2002

so that neither equal persons have unequal things, nor unequal persons things
equal.
The biblical notion of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", is in fact an
ennobling premise consistent with the definition of justice. A fulfillment of
fairness requires that things should be equal in proportions.
The punishment should be proportionate to the crime or harm done. This is
justice, and otherwise that, in which the punishment is greater than the harm done
is cruelty.
c. Death compared to rape
From the court decision,:
"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury
to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and
moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can
mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act xxx an outrage upon
decency and dignity that hurts not only the victim but the society itself,"
however rape has the opportunity of recovery and possibility of future enjoyment of
life left intact.
Death on the other hand is the extinguishment of the right of an individual to his body
in its completeness for the use in the enjoyment of life. Once severed, all hope for
opportunity and even atonement, vanish beyond recovery.

Death is excessive and cruel than rape. If used as retributory act, death is a cruel
punishment for rape
Under R.A. No. 7659, the mandatory penalty of death is imposed in the following
crimes:
Sec 11. xxx The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: xxx
( none involving death of the victim)

It is specifically against the foregoing capital crime/s that the test of heinousness
must be squarely applied. It is unusual that circumstances not involving death of
the victim necessitates the direct imposition of death sentence.
R.A. No. 7659 provides cruel punishment for rape.

d. Unconstitutionality of RA7659

Acts or Statutes that violate or are not consistent with the Constitutional
provisions is unconstitutional. The infliction of cruel punishment violates
Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution which provides :
"Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua."

R.A.No.7659 violates section 19(1) of the said article because it inflicts cruel
punishment to the accused. Therefore, R.A.No.7659 is unconstitutional
Discretion of judiciary
The Judiciary has the discretion to detemine the proper sentence based on the
grant inherent in the Death Penalty Law and through its vested power of Judicial
Review under the Constitution.
Under R.A. No. 7659, judicial discretion is given where the:
xxx.. criterion is deliberately undetailed as to the circumstances of the victim, the
accused, place, time, the manner of commission of crime, its proximate consequences
and effects on the victim as well as on society, to afford the sentencing authority
sufficient leeway to exercise his discretion in imposing the appropriate penalty in cases
where R.A. No. 7659 imposes not a mandatory penalty of death but the more flexible
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Also, there are capital crimes, where mandatory imposition of the supreme
penalty of death is expressly stated, which limits the exercise of judicial discretion
hence:
The Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review on the law in
view of the evidence proffered before it, find the attendance of certain
circumstances in the manner by which the crime was committed, or in the person
of the accused on his own or in relation to the victim, or in any other matter of
significance to the commission of the crime or its effects on the victim or on
society, for the purpose of preventing injustice; short of the ever existing danger
of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in meting out the death
sentence.
This is waranted because based on the court decision:
xxx .. Without difficulty, we understand the rationale for the guided discretion
granted in the trial court to cognize circumstances that characterize the commission of
the crime as heinous. Certainly there is an infinity of circumstances that may attend the
commission of a crime to the same extent that there is no telling the evil that man is
capable of.
The legislature cannot and need not foresee and inscribe in law each and every
loathsome act man is capable of. It is sufficient thus that R.A. 7659 provides the test
and yardstick for the determination of the legal situation warranting the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death. xxx

Superceeding Events

The sentence was brought to completion when the execution of the accused was
carried out on February 5, 1999. 7
The Death Penalty law, R.A.No. 7659 was repealed by R.A. 9346 on June 24,
2006 for unknown political reasons.
4. SUMMARY OF OPINION
The accused was denied of due process of law by sentencing him through an
unjust law. The punishment is more heinous and cruel than the crime
committed. The judicial discretion denied the fact that no life was taken and
no serious physical injury occurred in the commission of the crime, but
blindly applied the law which resulted in an injustice which our society is
vehemently against.
There is mistake however to think, that the Death Penalty has no place in our
society.
A reading of Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution readily shows that there
is really nothing therein that which expressly declares the abolition of the death
penalty. 8 The Constitution plainly vests in Congress the power to re-impose the
death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Though R.A. No.
7659 correctly identified heinous crimes and compelling reason for the law, a
proportionality test was not in place on those crimes that warrant mandatory
penalty of death, that could safeguard against against arbitrariness and injustice.
Thus the amendment and re-imposition of a Death Penalty law is in order.
Since still existing at the present state of the nation, involving heinous crimes, the
compelling reason of :
WHEREAS, due to the 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;

as expressed in the Death Penalty Law, R.A.No.7659.

The purpose of capital punishment or death penalty is not as a deterrent but
for retribution for the victims and as tool of the State to protect the citizens and
purge society of evil men whose self-interest values impunity of the law. It shows
the courage and duty of State to uphold justice in its harsh truth, because of
salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
The State shall do no less, for the only way that evil men to triumph is for
good people to do nothing.

Retrieved on 2Dec2014 at http://cpcabrisbane.org/Kasama/1999/V13n1/Bitay.htm

People v Munoz, 170SCRA107 (1989)