Leo Echegaray vs.

Secretary of Justice, et al
G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999.
Puno, J.

FACTS:
On June 25, 1996, petitioner was convicted for the rape of his
common law spouse’s ten year old daughter and was sentenced to death
penalty. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration raised for the first time the constitutionality of RA 7659
“The Death Penalty Law”, and imposition of death penalty for the crime of
rape. The motions were denied with the court finding no reason to declare it
unconstitutional and pronouncing Congress complaint with the requirements
for its imposition. Act. 8177 was passed amending Art. 8 of the RPC as
amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7659. The mode of execution was changed from
electrocution to lethal injection. The Secretary of Justice promulgated the
rules and regulations to implement RA 8177 and directed the Director of
Bureau of Corrections to prepare the Lethal Injection Manual.

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, injunction and TRO to

enjoin the Secretary of Justice and Director of Bureau of Prisons from
carrying out the execution, contending that RA 8177 and its implementing
rules are unconstitutional and void. The Executive Judge of the RTC of
Quezon City and Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 104 were later impleaded
to enjoin them from setting a date of execution.

On March 3, 1998, the court required respondents to comment and

mandated the parties to maintain status quo. Petitioner found a very urgent
motion to clarify status quo and to request for TRO until resolution of the
petition. The Solicitor General filed a comment on the petition dismissing
the claim that the RA in question is unconstitutional and providing
arguments in support of his contention. CHR filed a motion for Leave of
Court to intervene and appeal as Amicus Curiae alleging that the death
penalty is cruel and degrading citing applicable provisions and statistics
showing how other countries have abolished the death penalty and how
some have become abolitionists in practice. Petitioner filed a reply stating
that lethal injection is cruel, degrading, inhumane and violative of the
international Covenant on Civil and political Rights.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court abused its discretion in granting a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) on the execution of Echegaray despite the fact that
the finality of judgment has already been rendered… that by granting the
TRO, the Honorable Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an
executive function.

HELD:
No. Respondents cited sec 19, art VII. 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.
The provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of
courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their finality.
The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the
life of a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that
there is no higher right than the right to life.
For the public respondents therefore to contend that only the Executive can
protect the right to life of an accused after his final conviction is to violate
the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our
government.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Supplemental Motion for

Reconsideration is partially granted and to modify the dispositive portion of
the decision of the trial court by deleting the words "DEATH", as provided
for under RA 7659," and substitute therefore reclusion perpetua.