People v. Echegaray (ARMAN) 9.
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City sentenced Leo Echegaray to suffer the
G.R. No. 117472 | June 25, 1996| PER CURIAM | Excessive Fines and Cruel and
Inhuman Punishments; RPC and RA 7659; Imposition of death penalty
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENTS: LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO
SUMMARY: Leo Echegaray raped Rodessa (his 10 yo daughter). While the
mother was away from their house (gambling elsewhere), Leo dragged the girl
inside her room and raped her. Leo succeeded in raping the child 5 times more
in multiple occasions. The RTC found him guilty of statutory rape with the
aggravating circumustance of relationship of raping his own daughter of his
common law wife. He was sentenced to suffer death penalty under the RPC, as
amended by RA 7659.
On this automatic appeal the SC applied the RA 7659 amd upheld the RTC’s
ruling. The act of sexual assault of Leo upon his young is repulsive and
perverse. The girl’s tender age and Leo’s influence upon her made her succumb
to Leo’s selfish and bestial craving. The law has made it inevitable under the
circumstances of this case that Leo face the supreme penalty of death.
DOCTRINE: Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as
the Death Penalty Law, Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was amended.
The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that Leo
face the supreme penalty of death.
FACTS:
1. Complainant RODESSA ECHEGARAY is a ten-year old girl and a fifth-
grader, born on September 11, 1983.
2. Her parents are Rosalie and Leo Echegaray, the latter being the accused-
appellant himself.
3. Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after
her three brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session
in another place, she heard her father, the accused-appellant in this case,
order her brothers to go out of the house
4. Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and suddenly dragged her inside the
room. Appellant forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa’s organ causing
her to suffer intense pain
5. While appellant was pumping on her, he even uttered: ‘Masarap ba,
masarap ba?’ and to which Rodessa answered: ‘Tama na Papa, masakit’
6. Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she suffered.
7. The same sexual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usually took
place when her mother was out of the house
8. However, after the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother,
Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Rodessa’s mother.
penalty of DEATH, as provided for under R.A. No. 7659. Thus, this
automatic review.
ISSUE/s: Shall Echegaray suffer the penalty of death? YES.
RULING: WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City
RATIO:
1. Amidst the endless debates on whether or not the reimposition of the death
penalty is indeed a deterrent as far as the commission of heinous crimes is
concerned and while the attendant details pertaining to the execution of a
death sentence remain as yet another burning issue, we are tasked with
providing a clear-cut resolution of whether or not the herein accused-
appellant deserves to forfeit his place in human society for the infliction of
the primitive and bestial act of incestuous lust on his own blood.
2. Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 often referred to as the Death
Penalty Law, Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code was amended, to wit:
a. “The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
i. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
3. (With RA 7659) Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused
on his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse.
4. The victim’s tender age and the accused-appellant’s moral ascendancy and
influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to the
accused’s selfish and bestial craving. The law has made it inevitable under
the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme
penalty of death.