Case No.

1713
PEOPLE v. DAPITAN
G.R. No. 90625
May 23, 1991
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner Dapitan and his co-accused were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. In the case
at, petitioner and his co-accused robbed the house of private respondent Amil, taking from her 2 pieces of
mens watches worth P1,000, pair of long pants worth P250, and P75 in cash. Further, in order to prevent
respondents son in making an outcry, petitioners herein stabbed her son on the neck, killing him.
The trial court rendered a decision finding herein petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of robbery with homicide sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence this petition.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not reclusion perpetua is a cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment, which violates the
constitutional provisions on such punishments
HELD/RATIO
NO. The Supreme Court does not agree with petitioner herein that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is a
cruel and degrading punishment. To make that claim is to assail the constitutionality of Article 294,
par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, or of any other provisions therein and of special laws imposing the
said penalty for specific crimes or offenses. Further the Court ruled, Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code has survived four Constitutions of the Philippines, namely: the 1935 Constitution, the
1973 Constitution, the Freedom Constitution of 1986 and the 1987 Constitution. All of these
documents mention life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua as a penalty which may be imposed in
appropriate cases. The same paragraph of the section of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution
which prohibits the imposition of cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment expressly recognizes reclusion
perpetua.

Prepared by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador