People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v.

Leo Echegaray, accused-appellant

G.R. No. 117472 - June 25, 1996

FACTS
- This case is about the crime of rape filed against Leo Pilo Echegaray (Echegaray) who
was accused of repeatedly raping his ten-year old daughter, Rodessa Echegaray
(Rodessa).
- April 1994, at which time Rosalie, Rodessa’s mother and Echegaray’s live-in partner,
was out of the house, Echegaray brought Rodessa to their room and forced himself inside
her. Echegaray threatened the life of Rosalie if Rodessa would divulge what had
happened between them. Fearing for the life of her mother, Rodessa did not inform
anyone. The act was committed up to the fifth time, after which, Rodessa finally
informed her grandmother who in turn told her mother. Rodessa was then brought to the
police precinct where she executed an affidavit narrating the details of the sexual assault.
- During this time, the Republic Act No. 7659, or the Death Penalty Law was in effect.
- On September 7, 1994, after marathon hearing with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Echegaray was sentenced the supreme penalty of death.
- Echegaray sought the reversal of the decision of RTC arguing that a. the lower court
failed to appreciate the sinister motive on the complainant’s grandmother that
precipitated the filing of the charge; b. the lower court overlooked the fact that the healed
lacerations in the complainant’s organ could not have been the due to the accused’s
organ; and c. the lower court ignored the accused’s defense that he could not have been
with the complainant at the time and date of the imputed crime because he was in
Paranaque. This was dismissed, the decision of RTC re-affirmed.
- The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence ‘with finality’ on February 1997.
- Echegaray dropped the services of his attorney and sought the counsel of Free Legal
Assistance Group (FLAG), who continued to appeal the decision. FLAG attacked the
method of execution, stating that it was unconstitutional and constituted cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment.
- Echegaray filed a motion for appeal. This was denied on 19 January 1999.
- On Feb. 5, 1999, Echegaray was executed via lethal injection in the death chambers of
the New Bilibid Prison, becoming the first person to be executed after the reinstatement
of death penalty in the country.

ISSUE
- WON the decision of the Regional Trial Court sentencing Echegaray the supreme penalty
of death is considered final.

RULING
- No. In cases that involve the death penalty, the decision is only considered final when the
sentence has been executed, or when the accused withdraws his right to appeal. In
simpler terms, the decision had not been final so long as Echegaray was still breathing.
- A judgment becomes final and executory when the reglementary period to appeal lapses
and no appeal is perfected within such period. Once a judgment is final and executory, it
may no longer be modified in any manner. No court has the jurisdiction to overturn or
 modify such decision. This is based on consideration that even at the risk of occasional
errors, judgments must become final at a definite point in time.
- However, in the instant case, since the topic is death penalty, an exception is provided.
Whereas, the judgment only becomes final upon the complete / partial execution of the
death sentence, or after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the
accused waives his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.
- Death penalty can only be sentenced pursuant to the final judgment of a competent court
and it cannot be carried out earlier than one year nor later than 18 months after the
judgment has become final and executory.
- Echegaray was sentenced the supreme penalty of death on September 7, 1994 by the RTC
of Quezon City, and was executed on Feb. 5, 1999. Within such time, he was accorded all
faculties to appeal for his case, including the assistance of FLAG who brought into
question whether the application of lethal injection as death penalty was ultimately
constitutional.
- The President of the Philippines also retains the power to commute the death penalty and
grant clemency to the accused. None of these came into fruition, however, as we all know
the ending of this story. On the day of the execution, then President Joseph Estrada
commented that he ‘felt good’ with such decision. We may take comfort in the fact, at
least, that after these events, death penalty had been ultimately abolished, and all pre-
existing sentences were reduced to reclusion pertetua.