PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PATRICIO AMIGO alias "BEBOT", accused-appellant.

Facts:

On December 29, 1989 in the City of Davao, Benito Ng Suy was driving their gray Ford Fiera back home,
with his daughters. On their way home, they had an accidental head on collision with the Tamaraw being
driven by one Virgillio Abogado, and with him is the accused, Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot". The collision
caused slight damage to the right bumper of the Tamaraw. While Abogado and Benito were having a verbal
confrontation, Patricio approached Benito asking the latter to leave the incident as it was only a minor
incident. However, Benito said that Patricio should not interfere, which made Patricio irritated and caused
the latter to stab Benito, rendering the victim into a critical condition which later caused his death due to a
sepsis infection that has already circulated in his body.

Patricio Amigo was initially charged with Frustrated Murder for willfully, unlawfullu and feloniously attacking
Benito Ng Suy with a knife. However, upon death of the victim amended information was filed charging now
the crime of murder to which he was convicted with a penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is the medium
period of the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum to death and to pay the damages.

In line to this,the accused pleaded sympathy to reduce such penalty,claiming that error was committed by
the trial court in imposing or meting out the penalty of reclusion perpetua against him despite the fact that
Sec. 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution was already in effect when the offense was committed.

Issues: (In relation to Article 10)

Whether or Not the penalty imposed upon the accused "Reclusion Perpetua" be modified or reduced by
virtue of Section 19 (1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the imposition of death penalty.

Ruling:

The court ruled that the penalty should not be reduced. The Supreme Court hold that Article III, Section
19 (1) does not change the penalty periods prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except
only in so far as it prohibits the imposition of death penalty. The range of the medium and minimum
penalties remain the same. Hence, a person originally subject to death penalty and another who
committed the murder without the attendance of any modifying circumstances will now be both
punishable with the same medium period although the former is conceitedly more guilty than the latter.
But that is the will of the constitution and the duty of the court is to apply the law, disregarding the
sympathy or pity for an accused. Dura lex sed lex.