Sec 19 Prohibited Punishment - 11 - 10

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT the Constitution. Thus, while PD 818

increased the imposable penalties for
Prohibited punishments. Sec. 19. Art. estafa committed under Art. 315, par.
Ill: 2(d) without increasing the amounts
corresponding to the new penalties, it
“(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, does not violate the constitutional
nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman injunction against excessive punishment.
punishment inflicted. Neither shall the The fact that the decree did not increase
death penalty be imposed, unless for the amounts only proves that the amount
compelling reasons involving heinous is immaterial. What the law sought to
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for avert was the proliferation of estafa cases
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall committed by means of bouncing checks
be reduced to reclusion perpetua. [Lim v. People, G.R. No. 149276,
September 27, 2002].
(2) The employment of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment Penalties for violation of the Generics Act
against any prisoner or detainee, or the use ranging from a fine of P2,000 (for 2nd
of substandard or inadequate penal conviction) to not less than P10,000 (for
facilities under subhuman conditions shall 4th conviction) and suspension of license
be dealt with by law.”] to practice profession for one year or
longer, do not constitute cruel, degrading
Mere severity does not constitute cruel or inhuman punishment [del Rosario v.
or unusual punishment [People v. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521].
Dionisio, 22 SCRA 299]. To violate the
constitutional guarantee, the penalty The indeterminable period of
must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive, imprisonment prescribed as a penalty in
wholly disproportionate to the nature of Sec. 32, R.A. 4670 [Magna Carta for Public
the offense as to shock the moral sense of School Teachers] does not make it a cruel
the community [People v. Estoista, 93 or unusual punishment. However,
Phil 647]. because it has neither a maximum nor a
minimum duration, it gives the court wide
Settled is the rule that a punishment latitude of discretion, without the benefit
authorized by statute is not cruel or of a sufficient standard, and is
degrading unless it is flagrantly and unconstitutional for being an invalid
plainly oppressive or wholly delegation of legislative power [People v.
disproportionate to the nature of the Judge Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90]. PD 818,
offense. It takes more than merely being the decree increasing the penalty for
harsh, excessive, out of proportion or estafa committed through the issuance of
severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to bouncing checks, is constitutional; it is not
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
" Ang negatibong tao ay nakakakita ng problema sa bawat pagkakataon. Ang positibong tao
ay nakikita ang pagkakataon sa bawat problema.
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
cruel, degrading nor inhuman severe does not make it cruel and
punishment [Lim v. People, G.R. No. unusual." Expressed in other terms, it has
149276, September 27, 2002]. been held that to come under the ban, the
punishment must be "flagrantly and
plainly oppressive," "wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the
GABBY RECIT: offense as to shock the moral sense of the
Q: What are the examples of prohibited community."
punishments?
ANS – (1) excessive fines, (2) cruel, (3) GUIDES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
degrading, (4) or inhuman punishment.
THE PUNISHMENT IS CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL:
Q: what is cruel punishment? 1. It must not be so severe as to be

degrading to the dignity of human
ANS – it is when they involve torture or beings
lingering death; it implies that there is
2. It must not be applied arbitrarily
something inhuman or barbarous,
something more than the making of the 3. It must not be acceptable to
crime. contemporary society
4. It must not be excessive, thus serving
GABBY NOTES: In the case of people vs a penal purpose
Estoista, 5-10yrs, 6months, must still
impose the penalty provided for by law;
the remedy is recommendation for
EXLCUSIVE CLEMENCY. People vs. Estoista [G.R. No. L-5793,
August 27, 1953]
Q: WHEN IS A PENALTY “CRUEL,
As to the facts, the firearms with which
DEGRADING, OR INHUMAN”?
the appellant was charged with having in
ANSWER: his possession was a rifle and belonged to
his father, Bruno Estoista, who held a
It takes more than merely being harsh, legal permit for it. Father and son lived in
excessive, out of proportion, or severe for the same house, a little distance from a
a penalty to be obnoxious to the 27-hectare estate belonging to the family
Constitution. "The fact that the which was partly covered with cogon
punishment authorized by the statute, is grass, tall weeds and second growth trees.

Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
From a spot in the plantation 100 to 120 (Art. 5, Revised Penal Code; People vs.
meters from the house, the defendant De la Cruz, 92 Phil., 906.)
took a shot at a wild rooster and hit
Diragon Dima a laborer of the family who The sentence imposed by the lower court
was setting a trap for wild chicken and is much below the penalty authorized by
whose presence was not perceived by the Republic Act No. 4. The judgment is
accused. therefore modified so as to sentence the
accused to imprisonment for five years.
Without deciding whether the prohibition However, considering the degree of
of the Constitution against infliction of malice of the defendant, application of the
cruel and unusual punishment applies law to its full extent would be too harsh
both to the form of the penalty and the and, accordingly, it is ordered that copy of
duration of imprisonment, it is our this decision be furnished to the President,
opinion that confinement from 5 to 10 thru the Secretary of Justice, with the
years for possessing of carrying firearm is recommendation that the imprisonment
not cruel or unusual, having due regard to herein imposed be reduced to six months.
the prevalent conditions which the law the appellant will pay the costs of both
proposes to suppress or curb. The instances.
rampant lawlessness against property,
person, and even the very security of the
Government, directly traceable in large
measure to promiscuous carrying and use PEOPLE VS ESTOISTA G.R. No. L-5793 |
of powerful weapons, justify August 27, 1953
imprisonment which in normal
circumstances might appear excessive. If Art.19 –Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman
imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out of Punishment
proportion to the present case in view of FACTS: Estoista was for acquitted for
certain circumstances, the law is not to be homicide through reckless imprudence
declared unconstitutional for this reason. and convicted for illegal possession of
The constitutionality of an act of the firearm under one information by the CFI
legislature is not to be judged in the light of Lanao. The firearm with which the
of exceptional cases. Small transgressors appellant was charged with having in his
for which the heavy net was not spread
possession was a rifle and belonged to his
are like small fishes, bound to be caught, father, Bruno Estoista, who held a legal
and it is to meet such a situation as this permit for it. Father and son live& in the
that courts are advised to make a same house, a little distance from a
recommendation to the Chief Executive 27-hectare estate belonging to the family
for clemency or reduction of the penalty. which was partly covered with cogon

Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
grass, tall weeds and second growth trees. that courts are advised to make a
From a spot in the plantation 100 to 120 recommendation to the Chief Executive
meters from the house, the defendant for clemency or reduction of the penalty.
took a shot at a wild rooster and hit
DiragonDima, a laborer of the family
who was setting a trap for wild chickens GABBY NOTES:
and whose presence was not perceived by DOCTRINE IN THE PEOPLE VS
the accused.Estoista is assailing his MAPALAO is applicable to accused
conviction saying that the 5-10 years
convicted of punishment of death
penalty for the illegal possession of including people vs esparas.
firearms is cruel and excessive.
ISSUE: WoN the 5-10 years penalty for  All death penalty imposed by the
the illegal possession of firearms is trial courts are subject to the
excessive. automatic review of the supreme
court regardless whether the
HELD: It is of the court’s opinion that accused jumped bail or does not
confinement from 5 to 10 years for intend to appeal.
possessing or carrying firearm is not cruel
or unusual, having due regard to the  The constitutionally imposed
prevalent conditions which the law power of the Supreme Court to
proposes to suppress or curb. The imposed an automatic review a
rampant lawlessness against property, decision imposing a death penalty
person, and even the very security of the cannot be waived either by the
Government, directly traceable in large accused or by the courts.
measure to promiscuous carrying and use
of powerful weapons, justify  In essence, trial courts imposing
imprisonment which in normal death penalty are merely
circumstances might appear excessive. If commissioners; it is a mere
imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out of recommendation to the SC.
proportion to the presentcase in view of
certain circumstances, the law is not to be  The judgment of conviction
declared unconstitutional for this reason. entered on the trial is not final and
The constitutionality of an act of the it cannot be executed; thus it is
legislature is not to be judged in the light wholly without force and effect
of exceptional cases. Small transgressors until the cause has been proved
for which the heavy net was not spread upon by the Supreme Court.
are, like small fishes, bound to be caught,
and it is to meet such a situation as this

Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
 In the case of People vs Mateo, the executed, and is wholly without force or
Supreme Court sustained the effect until the cause has been passed
authority of the Court of Appeals in upon by the Supreme Court. In a sense the
reviewing the case which involve trial court acts as a commissioner who
capital punishment as takes the testimony and reports thereon
commissioners. to the Supreme Court with his
recommendation. While in practice he
enters a judgment of conviction and
sentences the prisoner thereunder, in
People vs. Esparas [G.R. No. 120034, reality, until passed upon by the Supreme
August 20, 1996] Court, it has none of the attributes of a
final judgment and sentence. It is a mere
ALL DEATH PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE recommendation to the Supreme Court,
TRIAL COURTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE based upon the facts on the record which
AUTOMATIC REVIEW OF THE SUPREME are presented with it. This is meant in no
COURT REGARDLESS WHETHER THE sense to detract from the dignity and
ACCUSED JUMPED BAIL OR DOES NOT power of Courts of First Instance. It
INTEND TO APPEAL. As the accused means simply that that portion of Spanish
remains at large up to the present time, procedure which related to cases where
the issue that confronts the Court is capital punishment was imposed still
whether or not it will proceed to survives.
automatically review her death sentence.
The issue need not befuddle us. In the "The requirement that the Supreme Court
1910 ground-breaking case of U.S. vs. pass upon a case in which capital
Laguna, et al., we already held thru Mr. punishment has been imposed by the
Justice Moreland, that the power of this sentence of the trial court is one having
Court to review a decision imposing the for its object simply and solely the
death penalty cannot be waived either by protection of the accused. Having
the accused or by the courts, viz.: received the highest penalty which the
law imposes, he is entitled under that law
"It is apparent from these provisions that to have the sentence and all the facts and
the judgment of conviction and sentence circumstances upon which it is founded
thereunder by the trial court does not, in placed before the highest tribunal of the
reality, conclude the trial of the accused. land to the end that its justice and legality
Such trial is not terminated until the may be clearly and conclusively
Supreme Court has reviewed the facts and determined. Such procedure is merciful. It
the law as applied thereto by the court gives a second chance for life. Neither the
below. The judgment of conviction courts nor the accused can waive it. It is a
entered on the trial is not final, can not be
Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
positive provision of the law that brooks has escaped. Indeed, an appellant may
no interference and tolerates no withdraw his appeal not because he is
evasions."(Emphasis supplied) guilty but because of his wrong
perception of the law. Or because he may
"It shall not be necessary to forward to the want to avail of the more speedy remedy
Supreme Court the record, or any part of pardon. Or because of his frustration
thereof, of any case in which there shall and misapprehension that he will not get
have been an acquittal, or in which the justice from the authorities. Nor should
sentence imposed is not death, unless such the Court be influenced by the seeming
case shall have been duly appealed; but repudiation of its jurisdiction when a
such sentence shall be executed upon the convict escapes. Ours is not only the
order of the court in which the trial was power but the duty to review all death
had. The records of all cases in which the penalty cases.
death penalty shall have been imposed by
any Court of First Instance, whether the No litigant can repudiate this power
defendant shall have appealed or not, and which is bestowed by the Constitution.
of all cases in which appeals shall have The power is more of a sacred duty which
been taken shall be forwarded to the we have to discharge to assure the People
Supreme Court for investigation and that the innocence of a citizen is our
judgments as law and justice shall dictate. concern not only in crimes that slight but
The records of such cases shall be even more, in crimes that shock the
forwarded to the clerk of the Supreme conscience. This concern cannot be
Court within twenty days, but not earlier diluted.
than fifteen days after the rendition of
sentence." The Court is not espousing a "soft, bended,
approach" to heinous crimes for as
We hold, however, that there is more discussed above, we have always
wisdom in our existing jurisprudence reviewed the imposition of the death
mandating our review of all death penalty penalty regardless of the will of the
cases, regardless of the wish of the convict. Our unyielding stance is dictated
convict and regardless of the will of the by the policy that the State should not be
Court. Nothing less than life is at stake given the license to kill without the final
and any court decision authorizing the determination of this Highest Tribunal
State to take life must be as error-free as whose collective wisdom is the last,
possible. We must strive to realize this effective hedge against an erroneous
objective, however elusive it may be, and judgment of a one-judge trial court. This
our efforts must not depend on whether enlightened policy ought to continue as
appellant has withdrawn his appeal or our beacon light for the taking of life ends

Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
all rights, a matter of societal value that mainly, that the judgment of conviction
transcends the personal interest of a (capital punishment of death) entered on
convict. The importance of this societal trial is not final, cannot be executed, and
value should not be blurred by the escape is wholly without force or effect until the
of a convict which is a problem of law cause has been passed upon by the
enforcement. Neither should this Court be Supreme Court. TC acts as a
moved alone by the outrage of the public commissioner who takes the testimony
for the rise in statistics of heinous crimes and reports the same to the Court with its
for our decisions should not be directed recommendation. A decision of TC does
by the changing winds of the social not become final unless and until it has
weather. Let us not for a moment forget been reviewed by the Court. An accused
that an accused does not cease to have who was sentenced with the highest
rights just because of his conviction. This penalty is entitled under the law to have
principle is implicit in our Constitution the sentence and all the facts and
which recognizes that an accused, to be circumstances upon which it is founded
right, while the majority, even if placed before the Court, as the highest
overwhelming, has no right to be wrong. tribunal of the land, to the end that its
justice and legality may be clearly and
conclusively determined. Such procedure
is merciful. It gives a second chance for
life. Neither the courts nor the accused
PEOPLE VS ESPARAS (1996) J. Puno can waive it. It is a positive provision of
the law that brooks no interference and
FACTS: Esparas was charged with
violation of DDA for importing 20kg of tolerates no evasions. (The Court here
applied Sec. 50, Gen. Orders No. 58.)
shabu. After arraignment and pleading
not guilty, she escaped from jail and was A little history on the matter: The 1935
tried in absentia. She was found guilty Constitution did not prohibit the
and was sentenced to death. She remains imposition of the death penalty. Section
at large at present. This is the issue. 2(4) of Art. VIII provided for review by
the Court of death penalty cases. Both the
ISSUE: Whether the Court may proceed to
automatically review Esparas’s death Rules of Court of 1940 and 1964 require
the transmission to the Court of the
sentence despite her absence.
records of all cases in which the death
HELD: Yes. In US v. Laguna (1910), the penalty was imposed by TC, whether the
Court held that its power to review a defendant has appealed or not, for review
decision imposing the death penalty and judgment. These rules were taken
cannot be waived either by the accused or from the General Orders itself. The 1973
by the courts. There, the Court said, Constitution did not also prohibit death
Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
penalty. Sec. 9, Rule 122 provided the determined by Congress. On December 13,
procedure for review of death penalty 1993, Congress reimposed the death
cases by the Court. Sec. 10, Rule 122 of penalty in cases involving the commission
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure of heinous crimes. This revived the
even reenacted said procedure of review procedure by which the Court reviews
and even expressly used the term death penalty cases per the Rules. It
"automatic review and judgment" by the remains automatic, does not depend on
Court. the whims of the death convict, continues
to be mandatory, and leaves the Court
So in People v. Villanueva (1953), the without any option.
Court held that the withdrawal of appeal
by a death convict does not deprive the Sec. 8, Rule 124, authorizing the
Court of jurisdiction to review his dismissal of an appeal when the appellant
conviction. In People v. Cornelio (1971), jumps bail, does not apply to cases where
which involved the escape of a death the death penalty is imposed. In death
convict, the Court held that said escape penalty cases, automatic review is
does not relieve the Court of its duty of mandatory. This is the text and tone of
reviewing his conviction. In People v. Sec. 10, Rule 122, which is the more
Daban (1972), the Court said, speaking applicable rule. There is more wisdom in
about convictions by TC of death penalty mandating the review by the Court
on the defendant, that until after the of all death penalty cases, regardless of
Court has spoken en consulta, no finality the wish of the convict and regardless of
could be attached to said decision. This the will of the Court. Nothing less than life
automatic review cannot be waived by the is at stake and any court decision
accused nor by the courts. The mere fact authorizing the State to take life must be
of escape of the accused cannot be a bar as error-free as possible. An appellant
at all. In People v. Saliling (1976), the may withdraw his appeal not because he
Court said that it is not precluded from is guilty but because of his wrong
reviewing the death sentence of an perception of the law, or because he may
accused who is at large. In People v. want to avail of the more speedy remedy
Buynay (1984), the Court reiterated the of pardon, or because of his frustration
rule that escape of a death convict will not and misapprehension that he will not get
automatically result in the dismissal of his justice from the authorities. Nor should
appeal. the Court be influenced by the seeming
repudiation of its jurisdiction when a
But finally, the 1987 Constitution was convict escapes. The Court has the duty to
enacted. It prohibits the imposition of the review all death penalty cases. No litigant
death penalty unless for compelling can repudiate this power which is
reasons involving heinous crimes as bestowed by the Constitution. The power
Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
is more of a sacred duty which the Court what was in issue was the arbitrariness
has to discharge to assure the People that pervading the procedure by which the
the innocence of a citizen is the main death penalty was imposed on the
concern especially in crimes that that accused by the sentencing jury.
shock the conscience. This concern cannot
be diluted. While the U.S. Court nullified all
discretionary death penalty statutes in
An accused does not cease to have rights Furman, it did so because the discretion
just because of his conviction. This which these statutes vested in the trial
principle is implicit in the Constitution judges and sentencing juries was
which recognizes that an accused, to be uncontrolled and without any parameters,
right, while the majority, even if guidelines or standards intended to
overwhelming, has no right to be wrong. lessen, if not altogether eliminate, the
intervention of personal biases,
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED IS GIVEN A prejudices and discriminatory acts on the
NEW PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM NOTICE part of the trial judges and sentencing
HEREOF TO FILE THE BRIEF OF ESPARAS.
juries. This ruling was re-affirmed in
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 130607,
NACHURA: November 17, 1999.
Lately, in People v. Baway, G.R. No.

The death penalty is not a cruel or
130406, January 22, 2001, the Supreme
unusual punishment [Harden v. Director
Court added that the issue of whether the
of Prisons, 81 Phil 741; People v.
death penalty should remain in our penal
Camano, 115 SCRA 688]. It is an exercise
laws is a question which should be
of the State’s power “to secure society
addressed to the legislature, because the
against the threatened and actual evil”
courts are not the proper venue for a
[People v. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682].
protracted debate on the morality and the
In People v. Echegaray, supra.,the propriety of capital punishment.
Supreme Court upheld the validity of R.A.
In Louisiana v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459,
7659 (Death Penalty Law) against the
where a mechanical failure in the electric
challenge that there are no compelling
reasons for the enactment of the same. chair prevented the execution of the
convict, and another execution date was
The Court also rejected the contention
scheduled by the warden, the US Supreme
that the death penalty is cruel, degrading
Court denied the plea of the convict that
or inhuman punishment, and said that the
he was being subjected to a cruel and
U.S. Supreme Court, in Furman.v. Georgia,
unusual punishment — as there is no
did not categorically rule on such issue;
intent to inflict unnecessary pain or any

Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
unnecessary pain involved in the the stay of a death sentence

proposed execution. The situation of the [Pagdayawon v. Secretary of Justice, G.R.
unfortunate victim of this accident is just No. 154569, September 23, 2002].
as though he had suffered the identical
amount of anguish and physical pain in
any other occurrence, such as, for
example, a fire in the cellblock. GABBY RECIT:
1999, the Supreme Court said that the Q: Does pain in itself constitute cruel
suspension of the execution of the death punishment?
sentence is indisputably an exercise of ANS – No, read the case of Echagaray
judicial power, as an essential aspect of
jurisdiction. It is not a usurpation of the Q: How about death itself?
presidential power of reprieve, although ANS – NO. It is not per se cruel, degrading,
its effect is the same, i.e., the temporary or inhuman punishment as long as it is
suspension of the execution of the death not coupled with torture or lingering
convict. In the same vein, it cannot be death.
denied that Congress can, at any time,
amend R.A. 7659 by reducing the penalty Rule on death penalty:
of death to life imprisonment. The effect General Rule: Death penalty shall not be
of such amendment is like commutation imposed.
of sentence. The powers of the Executive, EXCEPTION: If a crime is heinous in
the Legislative and the Judiciary to save nature or a crime which is a capital
the life of a death convict do not exclude offense.
each other for the simple reason that
there is no higher right than the right to Q: In 1973 they have the term “unusual
life. punishment”; unusual meaning novel,
new, not ordinary; but in the 1987
But the mere pendency in the two houses constitution they deleted it, what is the
of Congress of a bill seeking the repeal of effect of elimination?
R.A. 7659 should not per se warrant the ANS – it allows the congress to
outright issuance of a temporary experiment in penology as long as it is not
restraining order to stay the execution of cruel or degrading.
a death. In Echegaray v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, Q: HYPO: Electrecution, during
sentence that has become final. execution nagbrownout, may convict
the constitutional guarantee against
In fact, being speculative, it is not and prohibited punishment if he is to be
should not be considered as a ground for

Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
scheduled on another date of This means that the congress must

execution?
ANS – No, the delay was not imposed by first, describe what is meant by heinous
the state but it is beyond the control of crimes;
the latter. CRUELTY which is prohibited second, specify and penalize by death
are which by the constitution is declared only crimes that qualify as heinous in
cruel which is inherent in the penalty. It accordance with the definition or
does not cover circumstances which are description set in the death penalty
beyond the control of the state.
billand/or designate crimes punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death in which
WHY DID THE NEW CONSTITUTION latter case, death can only be imposed
ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY? upon the attendance of circumstances
ANSWER: duly proven in court
1. It inflicts traumatic pain not just third, the congress in enacting this death
penalty bill be singularly motivated by
on the convict but also on the
compelling reasons involving heinous
family, even if the penalty is not crimes
carried out
2. There is no convincing evidence
that it acts effectively as a Q: WHAT ARE HEINOUS CRIMES?
deterrent for serious crim
3. Penology favors reformative Crimes are heinous for being grievous,
rather than vindictive penalties odious and hateful offenses and which, by
reason of their inherent or manifest
4. Life is too precious a gift to be
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and
placed at the discretion of a human perversity are repugnant and outrageous
judge to the common standards and norms of
5. The law itself by imposing to many decency and morality in a just, civilized
safeguards manifests a reluctance and ordered society;
to impose death penalty
Q; WHEN IS A FINE EXCESSIVE?

Q: MAY THE LEGISLATURE RESTORE When it is disproportionate to the offense
DEATH PENALTY IN THE FUTURE?
Yes, if it finds compelling reasons

involving heinous crimes.
Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q: IF A COURT FINDS A PUNISHMENT 'Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor

TO BE CRUEL, DEGRADING, OR cruel and inhuman punishment
INHUMAN, OR A FINE EXCESSIVE, MAY inflicted.' . . . In the 1973 Constitution the
A PERSON BE CONVICTED UNDER SUCH phrase became 'cruel or unusual
LAW? punishment.' The Bill of Rights Committee
of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
No. Without a valid penalty, the law is not read the 1973 modification as prohibiting
a penal law. 'unusual' punishment even if not 'cruel.' It
was thus seen as an obstacle to
experimentation in penology.
Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice [G.R. Consequently, the Committee reported
out the present text which prohibits 'cruel,
No. 132601, October 12, 1998]
degrading or inhuman punishment' as
more consonant with the meaning desired
The main challenge to R.A. No. 8177 and
and with jurisprudence on the subject."
its implementing rules is anchored on
Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987
Petitioner contends that death by lethal
Constitution which proscribes the
injection constitutes cruel, degrading and
imposition of "cruel, degrading or
inhuman" punishment. " The prohibition inhuman punishment considering that
(1) R.A. No. 8177 fails to provide for the
in the Philippine Bill against cruel and
drugs to be used in carrying out lethal
unusual punishments is an Anglo-Saxon
injection, the dosage for each drug to be
safeguard against governmental
administered, and the procedure in
oppression of the subject, which made its
first appearance in the reign of William administering said drug/s into the
accused;
and Mary of England in 'An Act declaring
(2) R.A. No. 8177 and its implementing
the rights and liberties of the subject, and
settling the succession of the crown,' rules are uncertain as to the date of
execution, time of notification, the court
passed in the year 1689. It has been
incorporated into the Constitution of the which will fix the date of execution, which
uncertainties cause the greatest pain and
United States (of America) and into most
suffering for the convict; and
constitutions of the various States in
substantially the same language as that (3) the possibility of "botched executions"
or mistakes in administering the drugs
used in the original statute. The exact
renders lethal injection inherently cruel.
language of the Constitution of the United
States is used in the Philippine Bill." "The
Before the Court proceeds any further, a
counterpart of Section 19 (1) in the 1935
Constitution reads: brief explanation of the process of
administering lethal injection is in order.

Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
injection render said law "cruel,

In lethal injection, the condemned inmate degrading or inhuman"?
is strapped on a hospital gurney and
wheeled into the execution room. A The Court believes not. For reasons
trained technician inserts a needle into a hereafter discussed, the implementing
vein in the inmate's arm and begins an details of R.A. No. 8177 are matters which
intravenous flow of saline solution. At the are properly left to the competence and
warden's signal, a lethal combination of expertise of administrative officials.
drugs is injected into the intravenous line. Petitioner contends that Sec. 16 25 of R.A.
The deadly concoction typically includes No. 8177 is uncertain as to which "court"
three drugs: will fix the time and date of execution, and
the date of execution and time of
(1) a nonlethal dose of sodium notification of the death convict. As
thiopenthotal, a sleep inducing petitioner already knows, the "court"
barbiturate; which designates the date of execution is
(2) lethal doses of pancuronium bromide, a the trial court which convicted the
drug that paralyzes the muscles; and accused, that is, after this Court has
(3) potassium chloride, which stops the reviewed the entire records of the case
heart within seconds. The first two drugs and has affirmed the judgment of the
are commonly used during surgery to put lower court. Thereupon, the procedure is
the patient to sleep and relax muscles; the that the "judgment is entered fifteen (15)
third is used in heart bypass surgery. days after its promulgation, and 10 days
thereafter, the records are remanded to
Now it is well-settled in jurisprudence the court below including a certified copy
that the death penalty per se is not a cruel, of the judgment for execution." Neither is
degrading or inhuman punishment. In the there any uncertainty as to the date of
oft-cited case of Harden v. Director of execution nor the time of notification. As
Prisons, this Court held that to the date of execution, Section 15 of the
"[p]unishments are cruel when they implementing rules must be read in
involve torture or a lingering death; but conjunction with the last sentence of
the punishment of death is not cruel, Section 1 of R.A. No. 8177 which provides
within the meaning of that word as used that the death sentence shall be carried
in the constitution. It implies there out "not earlier than one (1) year nor
something inhuman and barbarous, later than eighteen (18) months after the
something more than the mere judgment has become final and executory,
extinguishment of life." Would the lack in without prejudice to the exercise by the
particularity then as to the details President of his executive clemency
involved in the execution by lethal powers at all times." Hence, the death

Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
convict is in effect assured of eighteen courts of the United States have been
(18) months from the time the judgment asked to review whether lethal injections
imposing the death penalty became final constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
and executory wherein he can seek No court has found lethal injections to
executive clemency and attend to all his implicate prisoners' Eighth Amendment
temporal and spiritual affairs. rights. In fact, most courts that have
addressed the issue state in one or two
Petitioner further contends that the sentences that lethal injection clearly is a
infliction of "wanton pain" in case of constitutional form of execution.
possible complications in the intravenous
injection, considering and as petitioner A few jurisdictions, however, have
claims, that respondent Director is an addressed the merits of the Eighth
untrained and untested person insofar as Amendment claims. Without exception,
the choice and administration of lethal these courts have found that lethal
injection is concerned, renders lethal injection does not constitute cruel and
injection a cruel, degrading and inhuman unusual punishment. After reviewing
punishment. Such supposition is highly medical evidence that indicates that
speculative and unsubstantiated. improper doses or improper
administration of the drugs causes severe
Any infliction of pain in lethal injection is pain and that prison officials tend to have
merely incidental in carrying out the little training in the administration of the
execution of the death penalty and does drugs, the courts have found that the few
not fall within the constitutional minutes of pain does not rise to a
proscription against cruel, degrading or constitutional violation.
inhuman punishment. "In a limited sense,
anything is cruel which is calculated to What is cruel and unusual "is not fastened
give pain or distress, and since to the obsolete but may acquire meaning
punishment imports pain or suffering to as public opinion becomes enlightened by
the convict, it may be said that all a humane justice" and "must draw its
punishments are cruel. But of course the meaning from the evolving standards of
Constitution does not mean that crime, decency that mark the progress of a
for this reason, is to go unpunished." The maturing society." Indeed, "[o]ther (U.S.)
cruelty against which the Constitution courts have focused on 'standards of
protects a convicted man is cruelty decency' finding that the widespread use
inherent in the method of punishment, of lethal injections indicates that it
not the necessary suffering involved in comports with contemporary norms." The
any method employed to extinguish life primary indicator of society's standard of
humanely. Numerous federal and state decency with regard to capital

Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
punishment is the response of the LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF

country's legislatures to the sanction. CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,
Hence, for as long as the death penalty AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE
remains in our statute books and meets 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
the most stringent requirements provided AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC
by the Constitution, we must confine our ACT NO. 7659.
inquiry to the legality of R.A. No. 8177,
whose constitutionality we duly sustain in The convict filed a Petition for prohibition
the face of petitioner's challenge. We find from carrying out the lethal injection
that the legislature's substitution of the against him under the grounds that it
mode of carrying out the death penalty constituted cruel, degrading, or unusual
from electrocution to lethal injection punishment, being violative of due
infringes no constitutional rights of process, a violation of the Philippines'
petitioner herein. obligations under international
covenants, an undue delegation of
legislative power by Congress, an
unlawful exercise by respondent
Secretary of the power to legislate, and an
ECHEGARAY VS SECRETARY G.R. No. unlawful delegation of delegated powers
132601 October 12, 1998 by the Secretary of Justice to respondent
Director.
FACTS: The SC affirmed the conviction of
petitioner Leo Echegaray y Pilo for the In his motion to amend, the petitioner
crime of rape of the 10 year-old daughter added equal protection as a ground.
of his common-law spouse and the
imposition upon him of the death penalty The Office of the Solicitor General stated
for the said crime. that this Court has already upheld the
constitutionality of the Death Penalty Law,
He filed an MFR and a supplemental MFR and has repeatedly declared that the
raising for the first time the issue of the death penalty is not cruel, unjust,
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 excessive or unusual punishment;
and the death penalty for rape. The Court execution by lethal injection, as
denied both motions. authorized under R.A. No. 8177 and the
questioned rules, is constitutional, lethal
In the meantime, Congress had seen it fit injection being the most modern, more
to change the mode of execution of the humane, more economical, safer and
death penalty from electrocution to lethal easier to apply (than electrocution or the
injection, and passed Republic Act No. gas chamber); the International Covenant
8177, AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY

Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
on Civil and Political Rights does not 3. Is it an undue delegation of legislative

expressly or impliedly prohibit the power?
imposition of the death penalty; R.A. No. 4. Is it discriminatory and contrary to
8177 properly delegated legislative law?
power to respondent Director; and that
R.A. No. 8177 confers the power to HELD:
promulgate the implementing rules to the No 1st three. Yes to last. Petition denied.
Secretary of Justice, Secretary of Health
and the Bureau of Corrections. Ratio:
The Commission on Human Rights filed a

Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene 1. Petitioner contends that death by
and/or Appear as Amicus Curiae with the lethal injection constitutes cruel,
attached Petition to Intervene and/or degrading and inhuman
Appear as Amicus Curiae. They alleged punishment considering that (1)
similarly with Echegaray’s arguments. R.A. No. 8177 fails to provide for
the drugs to be used in carrying
The petitioner filed a reply similar to his out lethal injection, the dosage for
first arguments. The court gave due each drug to be administered, and
course to the petition. the procedure in administering
said drug/s into the accused; (2)
Concisely put, petitioner argues that R.A. R.A. No. 8177 and its implementing
No. 8177 and its implementing rules do rules are uncertain as to the date
not pass constitutional muster for: (a) of the execution, time of
violation of the constitutional notification, the court which will
proscription against cruel, degrading or fix the date of execution, which
inhuman punishment, (b) violation of our uncertainties cause the greatest
international treaty obligations, (c) being pain and suffering for the convict;
an undue delegation of legislative power, and (3) the possibility of "botched
and (d) being discriminatory. executions" or mistakes in
administering the drugs renders
ISSUES: lethal injection inherently cruel.
1. Is it a violation of the constitutional
proscription against cruel, degrading or Now it is well-settled in jurisprudence
inhuman punishment? that the death penalty per se is not a cruel,
2. Is it a violation of our international degrading or inhuman punishment.
treaty obligations?

Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Harden v. Director of Prisons- out "not earlier than one (1) year nor
"punishments are cruel when they involve later then eighteen (18) months from the
torture or a lingering death; but the time the judgment imposing the death
punishment of death is not cruel, within penalty became final and executory,
the meaning of that word as used in the without prejudice to the exercise by the
constitution. It implies there something President of his executive clemency
inhuman and barbarous, something more powers at all times." Hence, the death
than the mere extinguishment of convict is in effect assured of eighteen
life." Would the lack in particularity then (18) months from the time the judgment
as to the details involved in the execution imposing the death penalty became final
by lethal injection render said law "cruel, and executor wherein he can seek
degrading or inhuman"? The Court executive clemency and attend to all his
believes not. For reasons discussed, the temporal and spiritual affairs.
implementing details of R.A. No. 8177 are Petitioner further contends that the
matters which are properly left to the infliction of "wanton pain" in case of
competence and expertise of possible complications in the intravenous
administrative officials. injection that respondent Director is an
untrained and untested person insofar as
Petitioner contends that Sec. 16 of R.A. No. the choice and administration of lethal
8177 is uncertain as to which "court" will injection is concerned, renders lethal
fix the time and date of execution, and the injection a cruel, degrading and inhuman
date of execution and time of notification punishment. This is unsubstantiated.
of the death convict. As petitioner already First. Petitioner has neither alleged nor
knows, the "court" which designates the presented evidence that lethal injection
date of execution is the trial court which required the expertise only of
convicted the accused. The procedure is phlebotomists and not trained personnel
that the "judgment is entered fifteen (15) and that the drugs to be administered are
days after its promulgation, and 10 days unsafe or ineffective. Petitioner simply
thereafter, the records are remanded to cites situations in the United States
the court below including a certified copy wherein execution by lethal injection
of the judgment for execution. Neither is allegedly resulted in prolonged and
there any uncertainty as to the date of agonizing death for the convict, without
execution nor the time of notification. As any other evidence whatsoever.
to the date of execution, Section 15 of the
implementing rules must be read in Second. Petitioner overlooked Section 1,
conjunction with the last sentence of third paragraph of R.A. No. 8177 which
Section 1 of R.A. No. 8177 which provides requires that all personnel involved in the
that the death sentence shall be carried execution proceedings should be trained

Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
prior to the performance of such task. We be imposed only for the most serious
must presume that the public officials crimes in accordance with the law in force
entrusted with the implementation of the at the time of the commission of the crime
death penalty will carefully avoid and not contrary to the provisions of the
inflicting cruel punishment. present Covenant and to the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Third. Any infliction of pain in lethal Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only
injection is merely incidental in carrying be carried out pursuant to a final
out the execution of death penalty and judgment rendered by a competent
does not fall within the constitutional court."
proscription against cruel, degrading and The punishment was subject to the
inhuman punishment. "In a limited sense, limitation that it be imposed for the "most
anything is cruel which is calculated to serious crimes".
give pain or distress, and since Included with the declaration was the
punishment imports pain or suffering to Second Optional Protocol to the
the convict, it may be said that all International Covenant on Civil and
punishments are cruel. But of course the Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of
Constitution does not mean that crime, the Death Penalty was adopted by the
for this reason, is to go unpunished." The General Assembly on December 15,
cruelty against which the Constitution 1989. The Philippines neither signed nor
protects a convicted man is cruelty ratified said document.
inherent in the method of punishment,
not the necessary suffering involved in
any method employed to extinguish life 3. R.A. No. 8177 likewise provides
humanely. the standards which define the
legislative policy, mark its limits,
What is cruel and unusual "is not fastened map out its boundaries, and
to the obsolete but may acquire meaning specify the public agencies which
as public opinion becomes enlightened by will apply it. It indicates the
a humane justice" and "must draw its circumstances under which the
meaning from the evolving standards of legislative purpose may be carried
decency that mark the progress of a out. R.A. No. 8177 specifically
maturing society." requires that "the death sentence
shall be executed under the
authority of the Director of the
2. International Covenant on Civil Bureau of Corrections,
And Political Rights states: endeavoring so far as possible to
2. In countries which have not abolished mitigate the sufferings of the
the death penalty, sentence of death may person under the sentence during
Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the lethal injection as well as The Court finds in the first paragraph of
during the proceedings prior to the Section 19 of the implementing rules a
execution." Further, "the Director vacuum. The Secretary of Justice has
of the Bureau of Corrections shall practically abdicated the power to
take steps to ensure that the lethal promulgate the manual on the execution
injection to be administered is procedure to the Director of the Bureau of
sufficient to cause the Corrections, by not providing for a mode
instantaneous death of the of review and approval. Being a mere
convict." The legislature also constituent unit of the Department of
mandated that "all personnel Justice, the Bureau of Corrections could
involved in the administration of not promulgate a manual that would not
lethal injection shall be trained bear the imprimatur of the administrative
prior to the performance of such superior, the Secretary of Justice as the
task." The Court cannot see that rule-making authority under R.A. No.
any useful purpose would be 8177. Such apparent abdication of
served by requiring greater detail. departmental responsibility renders the
The question raised is not the said paragraph invalid.
definition of what constitutes a
criminal offense, but the mode of
carrying out the penalty already 4. Petitioner contends that Section 17
imposed by the Courts. In this of the Implementing Rules is
sense, R.A. No. 8177 is sufficiently unconstitutional for being
definite and the exercise of discriminatory as well as for being
discretion by the administrative an invalid exercise of the power to
officials concerned is, canalized legislate by respondent
within banks that keep it from Secretary. Petitioner insists that
overflowing. Section 17 amends the instances
when lethal injection may be
suspended, without an express
However, the Rules and Regulations to amendment of Article 83 of the
Implement Republic Act No. 8177 suffer Revised Penal Code, as amended
serious flaws that could not be by section 25 of R.A. No. 7659.
overlooked. To begin with, something
basic appears missing in Section 19 of the
implementing rules which provides a "SEC. 17. SUSPENSION OF THE
manual for the execution procedure. It EXECUTION OF THE DEATH
was supposed to be confidential. SENTENCE. Execution by lethal injection
shall not be inflicted upon a woman
within the three years next following the

Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
date of the sentence or while she is petitioner's view, tantamount to a gender-

pregnant, nor upon any person over based discrimination sans statutory basis,
seventy (70) years of age. In this latter while the omission is an impermissible
case, the death penalty shall be commuted contravention of the applicable law.
to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with
the accessory penalties provided in Being merely an implementing rule,
Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code." Section 17 aforecited must not override,
but instead remain consistent and in
Petitioner contends that Section 17 is harmony with the law it seeks to apply
unconstitutional for being discriminatory and implement.
as well as for being an invalid exercise of
the power to legislate by respondent
Secretary. Petitioner insists that Section NACHURA:
17 amends the instances when lethal
injection may be suspended, without an
express amendment of Article 83 of the Plea of guilt in capital offenses. When
Revised Penal Code, as amended by an accused pleads guilty to a capital
section 25 of R.A. No. 7659, stating that offense, the stringent constitutional
the death sentence shall not be inflicted standards of the due process clause
upon a woman while she is pregnant or require that the trial court must conduct a
within one (1) year after delivery, nor searching inquiry into the voluntariness
upon any person over seventy years of of the plea, and the accused’s full
age. comprehension of the consequences
thereof. It shall also require the
While Article 83 of the Revised Penal prosecution to present evidence to prove
Code, as amended by Section 25 of the guilt of the accused and the precise
Republic Act No. 7659, suspends the degree.of his culpability. The accused
implementation of the death penalty must also be asked if he desires to present
while a woman is pregnant or within one evidence, and in the affirmative, allow
(1) year after delivery, Section 17 of the him to do so [People v. Sta. Teresa, G.R.
implementing rules omits the one (1) year No. 130633, March 20, 2001; People v.
period following delivery as an instance Galas, G.R. Nos. 139413-15, March 20,
when the death sentence is suspended, 2001].
and adds a ground for suspension of
sentence no longer found under Article 83 Because these standards were not
of the Revised Penal Code as amended, complied with, the Supreme Court
which is the three-year reprieve after a remanded to the trial court the cases in
woman is sentenced. This addition is, in People v. Aranzado, G.R. Nos. 132442-44,
September 21, 2001, and People v.
Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Benavidez, G.R. Nos. 142372-74,

September 17, 2002. On the other hand,
in People v. Principe, G.R. No. 135862,
May 02, 2002, the conviction was
affirmed, because even if the accused’s
improvident plea were to be disregarded,
in addition to his plea, other evidence,
consisting of his extrajudicial confession,
his testimony in court and the testimony
of other witnesses, were sufficient to
sustain a conviction.
3Automatic review in death penalty cases

shall proceed even in the absence of the
accused, considering that “nothing less
than life is at stake and any court decision
must be as error-free as possible” [People
v. Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, May 7,
2001]. The automatic review of the death
penalty includes an appeal of the less
serious crime not punished by death but
arising out of the same occurrence or
committed by the accused on the same
occasion [People v. Panganiban],

Page | 21

Sec 19 Prohibited Punishment - 11 - 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec 19 Prohibited Punishment - 11 - 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT the Constitution. Thus, while PD 818

Q: what is cruel punishment? 1. It must not be so severe as to be

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Lately, in People v. Baway, G.R. No.

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

unnecessary pain involved in the the stay of a death sentence

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

scheduled on another date of This means that the congress must

Q; WHEN IS A FINE EXCESSIVE?

Yes, if it finds compelling reasons

Q: IF A COURT FINDS A PUNISHMENT 'Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

injection render said law "cruel,

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

punishment is the response of the LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

on Civil and Political Rights does not 3. Is it an undue delegation of legislative

The Commission on Human Rights filed a

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

date of the sentence or while she is petitioner's view, tantamount to a gender-

Benavidez, G.R. Nos. 142372-74,

3Automatic review in death penalty cases

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

You might also like