EN BANC

[G.R. No. 117472. September 2, 1997.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO

ECHEGARAY, accused-appellant.

RESOLUTION

Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En
Banc dated September 2, 1997.

G.R. No. 117472 (People vs. Leo Echegaray). — In a letter dated March 4,
1997 of Atty. Vicente G. Vinarao, Director of the Bureau of Corrections, two
queries are addressed before us, to wit:

(a)What should be the reckoning point from which the execution of

the death penalty be carried out?; and

(b)Does the acceptance of an appointment as phlebotomist, tasked

in administering lethal injection to persons meted with the
death sentence by medical technologists, doctors, dentists,
nurses or other medical practitioners warrant revocation of
their licenses to practice as such? cdrep

As regards the first query, Atty. Vinarao asks whether the reckoning point
be from June 25, 1996 which is the date of our decision affirming the judgment
of the lower court or from February 7, 1997 which is the date of the denial of
accused-appellant's motions for reconsideration.

Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8177 (Death Penalty Law), it is

provided that:
"The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1)
year nor later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has
become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the
President of his executive clemency powers at all times." (Emphasis
ours)

It is well-settled that a judgment becomes final and executory by

operation of law. Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the
reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected. (Adez Realty Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 623 [1992]; Cachola Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 208
SCRA 496 [1992]; City of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 362 [1991]. In
criminal cases, Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states
the circumstances when a judgment becomes final. However, we cannot
specifically apply these tenets to judgments imposing the death penalty which
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 is imposed or affirmed by this Court itself since, obviously, no appeal lies
therefrom. Thus, it is only but proper that a judgment of this Court imposing
the death sentence becomes final and executory after the expiration of fifteen
(15) days from service of a copy thereof on counsel of the accused-appellant, or
on the latter if so ordered by this Court, and no motion for reconsideration (or,
where allowed by this Court, a motion for new trial [see Helmuth, Jr. v. People,
112 SCRA 573 [1982]; People v. Amparado, 156 SCRA 712 [1987] has been
filed by accused-appellant, or no ground has supervened which would
justifiably interrupt or warrant the suspension of the running of the
reglementary period for finality. Where a motion for reconsideration has been
filed and denied, the finality of such resolution shall be substantially subject to
the same rule.

A scrutiny of the records reveals that the accused-appellant received on

February 12, 1997 (Rollo, p. 289) a copy of our Resolution dated February 7,
1997 denying his motion for reconsideration. Applying the aforecited rule, we
must reckon the fifteen (15) day period from February 12, 1997 and so rule that
the judgment imposing the death sentence on accused-appellant became final
and executory on February 27, 1997.
Considering that it is premature for this Court to make any
pronouncements on the position of PAMET and PASMETH regarding the
appointment of a medical technologist as a phlebotomist in the absence of a
judicial controversy before us in relation thereto, We refer this matter to the
Department of Justice for its opinion thereon.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We RESOLVE that the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections carry out the death sentence not earlier than one (1) year
nor later than eighteen (18) months from February 27, 1997 without prejudice
to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers at all times.

As to the acceptance of an appointment as phlebotomist by a medical

technologist, doctor, dentist, nurse or other medical practitioner, as the case
may be, We FURTHER RESOLVE that the query be REFERRED to the Department
of Justice for its perusal and opinion. llcd

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA B. VILLARAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com