TWO INSTANCES WHEN DEATH MAY
BE IMPOSED WHEN CONSTRUED
UNDER RA 7659
Thus, construing R.A. No. 7659 in pari materia with the Revised Penal Code, death may be imposed when (1) aggravating circumstances attend the commission of the crime as to make operative the provision of the Revised Penal Code regarding the imposition of the maximum penalty; and (2) other circumstances attend the commission of the crime which indubitably characterize the same as heinous in contemplation of R.A. No. 7659 that justify the imposition of the death, albeit the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. (People v. Echegaray)
WHY DEATH PENALTY
IS IMPOSED ON HEINOUS CRIMES
The death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses from abject poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest citizenry, and because they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of government, they must be permanently prevented from doing so. At any rate, this court has no doubts as to the innate heinousness of the crime of rape, as we have held in the case of People v. Cristobal. (People v. Echegaray)
WHY RAPE IS A HEINOUS CRIME
“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 . . . an outrage upon decency and dignity that hurts not only the victim but the society itself.” (People v. Echegaray)
WHY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SHOULD NOT BE ABOLISHED
“Capital punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is substantially repulsive, if infinitely less repulsive than the acts which invoke it. Yet the mounting zeal for its abolition seems to arise from a sentimentalized hyperfastidiousness that seeks to expunge from the society all that appears harsh and suppressive. If we are to preserve the humane society we will have to retain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquillity and civility may rule comprehensively. It seems very likely that capital punishment is a . . . necessary, if limited factor in that maintenance of social tranquillity and ought to be retained on this ground. To do otherwise is to indulge in the luxury of permitting a sense of false delicacy to reign over the necessity of social survival.” (People v. Echegaray)
RA 6425 AS AMENDED BY RA 7659
WHEN PENALTY IN NEW LAW NOT FAVORABLE
TO ACCUSED IT SHOULD BE RETAINED
Appellant in this case was convicted and meted the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of twenty thousand pesos under RA 6425 for transporting more or less 6 kilos of marijuana on July 1990. RA 7659, which took effect on December 31/93, amended the provisions of RA 6425, increasing the imposable penalty for the sale or transport of 750 grams or more of marijuana to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Such penalty is not favorable to the appellant as it carries the accessory penalties provided under the RPC and has a higher amount of fine which in accordance with ART 22 of the same code should not be given retroactive effect. The court, therefore, finds and so holds that the penalty of life imprisonment and fine in the amount of twenty thousand pesos correctly imposed by the trial court should be retained. (PP v Carreon, 12/9/97)
COURTS SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED
ABOUT WISDOM, EFFICACY OR MORALITY
OF LAWS
It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws. That question falls exclusively within the province of the Legislature which enacts them and the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them. The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and, if not in disharmony with the Constitution, to apply them. And for the guidance of the members of the judiciary we feel it incumbent upon us to state that while they as citizens or as judges may regard a certain law as harsh, unwise or morally wrong, and may recommend to the authority or department concerned, its amendment, modification, or repeal, still, as long as said law is in force, they must apply it and give it effect as decreed by the law-making body. (People v. Veneracion)
REASON FOR DURATION OF
RECLUSION PERPETUA
OF 30 OR 40 YEARS
The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua, therefore, is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties. (People v. Lucas)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED DOES NOT ALTER CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OFFENSE
BUT CAN BE APPRECIATED AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
While the number of persons killed does not alter the characterization of the offense as robbery with homicide, the multiplicity of the victims slain should have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be. (People V. Timple)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND ROBBERY WITH RAPE; PROVISION OF ARTICLE 294 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7659 CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; CASE AT BAR.
Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. In view, however, of the first paragraph of Section 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that: “Sec. 19. (1) 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” (Emphasis supplied) only the penalty of reclusion perpetua could be imposed by the trial court. Hence, the attended aggravating circumstances in this case had no impact upon the determination of the proper penalty by the trial court. By Republic Act No. 7659 (effective 31 December 1993), Congress re-imposed the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, including robbery with homicide and robbery with rape. By the same statute, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code was amended to read as follows: “Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation on any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. . . . (Emphasis supplied) Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, however, cannot be applied retroactively in this case. To do so would be to subject the appellant to the death penalty which could not have been constitutionally imposed by the court a quo under the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offenses. (People v. Timple)
A PERSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF
GRAVE COERCION ALTHOUGH
THE CHARGE IS KIDNAPPING
The Information, dated March 24, 1992, filed against Astorga contains sufficient allegations constituting grave coercion, the elements of which were sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Hence, a conviction for said crime is appropriate under Section 4, Rule 120 of the 1988 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
(People -vs- Astorga)
ELEMENTS OF GRAVE COERCION
Grave Coercion or coaccion grave has three elements:
- That any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his or her will, be it right or wrong;
- That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party; and
- c. that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so or, in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of a law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
(People -vs- Astorga)
ACTUAL DETENTION OR LOCKING UP, AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF KIDNAPPING
Actual detention or “locking up” is the primary element of kidnapping. If the evidence does not adequately prove this element, the accused cannot be held liable for kidnapping. In the present case, the prosecution merely proved that appellant forcibly dragged the victim toward a place only he knew. There being no actual detention or confinement, the appellant may be convicted only of grave coercion.
(People -vs- Astorga; GGR 110097, December 22, 1997)
