SECTION 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 reduce to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee, or
the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Penalties
(People v Estoisa, Furman v Georgia)
- takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of
proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
Constitution.
- Must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the
moral sense of the community
1. A punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the
dignity of human beings
2. Must not be applied arbitrarily
3. Must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
4. Must not be excessive (ie. Must serve a penal purpose more
effectively than a less sever punishment would)
Death Penalty Abolished
1. It inflicts traumatic pain not just on the convict but also on the
family, even if the penalty is not carried out
2. There is no convincing evidence that it acts effectively as a
deterrent of serious crime
3. Penology favors reformative rather than vindictive penalties
4. Life is too precious a gift to be placed at the discretion of a
human judge
5. The law itself, by imposing so many safeguards before a death
penalty is carried out, manifests a reluctance to impose the
death penalty.
Note: When death penalty is already imposed, it is reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
Art 47 RPC
- Death penalty shall not be imposed when the guilty person is
1. Below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime
2. More than 70 years of age when upon appeal OR automatic
review of the case by the SC, the required majority vote is not
obtained for the imposition of death
Art 248 RPC (Murder)
Penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its max. period to death.
Hence, the penalty consisted of three grades: (1) reclusion temporal
max (2) reclusion perpetua (3) death
The effect of Sec 19(1):
People v Gavarra: reduced to two grades (1) and (2)
People v Masangkay: divided remaining 2 grades into 3 grades
Legislative Power to restore Death Penalty
3. Yes, for “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes”
4. Congress may also abolish it after it has reimposed it.
1. Congress may define or describe what is meant by “heinous
crimes”
2. That Congress specify and penalize by death, only crimes that
qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or
description set in the death penalty bill and/or designate crimes
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in which latter case,
death can only be imposed upon the attendance of
circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the crime
to be heinous in accordance with the definition or description
set in the death penalty bill
3. That Congress, in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly
motivated by “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes”
(People v Echegaray)
RA 7659 Death Penalty Law
1. grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which, by reason of
their injerent 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.
2. There is nothing in Art III, Sec 19(1) imposes a requirement that
for a death penalty bill to be valid, that a positive manifestation
in the form of higher incidence of crime should first be
perceived and statistically proven following the suspension of
the death penalty (People v Echegaray, 1997)
3. The courts are not precluded, given mitigating factors or
condition duly established in evidence, (a) from declaring the
crime charged to be, in fact, non-heinous in character or (b)
from concluding that no compelling reasons exist to warrant the
imposition of the death penalty
Heinous Crimes
- Empowers Congress to reinstate the death penalty but only if
such re-imposition is for the following:
1. For compelling reasons
2. Confined heinous crimes
Note: Bernas advances that legislative facts are different from
judicial facts. The legislature is more limited in the scope
considering the facts relevant to enacting a piece of legislation while
the trial court must point to judicial facts which establish a link
between the offense committed and the reality which the penal law
envisions to be deserving of the supreme penalty. Hence, the
imposition of the death penalty per se should not be conclusive on
the judiciary, since the matter is not solely legislative but judicial in
concept and in nature.
Death Penalty per se
- The 1973 Constitution by recognizing the death penalty, in that
it made the imposition of death penalty automatically
reviewable by the SC implicitly admitted that it is per se not
cruel and unusual.
- However, the circumstances under which a specific law may
allow the death penalty may make it cruel and unusual under
such law such as when it involves torture or a lingering death.
Vis a vis International Laws (ICCPR)
- Article 6(2) of the Covenant explicitly recognizes that capital
punishment is an allowable limitation on the right to life, subject
to the limitation that it be imposed for most serious crimes
- Human Rights Committee (July 27, 1982) issued Genera
Comment No. 6 interpreting Art 6(2) of the Covenant stating
that while state parties are not obliged to abolish the death
penalty totally, they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular,
to abolish it for other than the most serious crimes
- The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty was adopted by the General
Assembly on Dec 15, 1989. (Note: the Philippines did not sign
or ratify such document)
Equal Protection
- Anyone, regardless of his economic status in life, may commit a
crime.
- While there may be perceived imbalances in the imposition of
penalties, there are adequate safeguards in the Constitution,
the law and procedural rules to ensure due process and equal
 protection of the law.
(People v Mercado)

Discretion of Judge
- Must not immediately impose the penalty but must first look into
the evidence to see if death is the proper penalty (People v Vinuya)
Note: Review of death sentences first by the CA and next by the SC
is now automatic and mandatory. It may not be waived by the court
or by the accused (People v Laguna, January 2006) BUT review of
reclusion perpetua may be viewed. RA 9346 (June 2006) disallows
imposition of the death penalty.

Excessive Fines
- When under any circumstance it is disproportionate to the
offense.
- Penalties are required because laws must have teeth.
Note: If a court finds a punishment attached to a law is cruel,
degrading or inhuman or a fine excessive, a person may not be
convicted under such law. Without a valid penalty, the law is not a
penal law.