PEOPLE v.

ECHEGARAY
February 7, 1997 | Per Curiam | Penalties that may be imposed - Death Penalty

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines

ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Leo Echegaray
SUMMARY: Accused-appellant Echegaray was convicted for raping his 10-year old daughter. Since the punishment at
that time was the death penalty, his case was automatically elevated to the SC. Echegaray was the first Filipino to be
sentenced to death after the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1993.
DOCTRINES:
(1) The Constitutional Amendment did NOT ABSOLUTELY ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY. The amendment
merely says that the death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it, and if already imposed, shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) RA 7659 correctly identified crimes warranting the mandatory penalty of death. As to the other crimes punished by
reclusion perpetua to death- the proper time to determine their heinousness in contemplation of law is on automatic
review. BUT! Aggravating circumstances under the RPC need not be additionally alleged in order for the TC to validly
impose the death penalty for crimes under RA 7659, which are punished with the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death.
(3) Death penalty is imposed because the heinous crimes have so deeply dehumanized a person or the criminal acts
have severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the abject masses from poverty (public interest). Their
acts have caused irreparable injury to both the victim and society, and repetition of the acts would pose an actual threat
to the individual and the government, so they must permanently be prevented from doing so.

FACTS: would act as a bar on the criminal

1. The RPC, enacted in 1932, included death
penalty as a punishment.
2. 1986 Constitution: Article III, Sec 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 may be
reduced to recluscion perpetua”
3. December 1993-Death Penalty law came into
effect, R.A. 7659 (“An Act to Impose the Death
Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for that Purpose the RPC as Amended, Other
Special Penal Laws, and for other Purposes”)
4. April 1994-Accused-appellant Echegaray
allegedly raped his 10-year old daughter. Upon
his conviction of guilty, his case was
automatically elevated to the SC.
5. June 25,1996- Court rendered decision,
affirming conviction of Echegaray. Death
penalty ordered.
6. Echegaray filed a Motion for Reconsideration-
no findings to disturb verdict
7. Echegaray filed the Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration (with FLAG as the new
defense counsel) with 3 main grounds for
reversal of death sentence:
i. Mixed factual and legal matters relating to
the trial proceedings and findings
-Included the affidavit
desistance which defense claimed
prosecution  No bearing; an
affidavit of desistance is merely an
additional ground to buttress the
accused’s defenses- not the sole
consideration that can result in
acquittal. During the trial
proceedings, the victim admitted
that she signed the Affidavit of
Desistance, yet the was not
withdrawing the charge against the
accused because he might do the
same sexual assaults to other
women. The denial of the crime and
the alibi presented by Echegaray
cannot outweigh the positive
identification and convincing
testimonies given by the prosecution
ii. Alleged incompetence of Echegaray's
former counsel  court found that there
was no gross incompetence and the alleged
errors committed by the previous counsel
could not have overturned the judgment of
conviction
iii. Purely legal question of the
constitutionality of RA 7659: R.A. [No.]
7659, Defnese argues that reimposing the
death penalty is unconstitutional per se:
 That the death penalty
is unconstitutional per
se for having been
of enacted in the absence
of compelling reasons
  For crimes where no
death results from the
offense, the death
penalty is a severe and
excessive penalty in
violation of Article III,
Sec. 19 (I) of the 1987
Constitution.
In summary, Echegaray's argument was: The death
penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
Article III, Sec. 11 of the 1987 Constitution."  SC
found it to be not unconstitutional (discussion below)
HELD: Motion for Reconsiderations were denied for
lack of merit; guilty- penalty of death sentence affirmed
ISSUES
1. WON Congress can legislate the imposition of
the death penalty? YES
2. WON RA 7659 provides sufficient standards for
the determination of the legal situation
warranting imposition of death penalty? YES
a. Nothing in the constitutional provision
imposes a requirement that for the death
penalty to be valid, there must be a
positive manifestation in the form of
higher incidence of crime, or that it must
be resorted to as a last recourse when all
other reforms failed.
b. Test of heinousness applied to RA-
found to be sufficient
3. WON the death penalty imposed in rape is
violative of the constitutional proscription
against cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment? NO
a. WON death penalty is per se cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment? NO
(Echegaray’s contention, citing Furman
v. Georgia)
b. WON death penalty is cruel, inhuman or
degrading for the crime of rape mainly
because unlike murder, it does not
involve the taking of life? NO
(Echegaray’s contention)
RATIO
ISSUE #1: WON Congress can legislate the
imposition of the death penalty? - YES
- Note: Courts are not the fora for protracted debate on
the morality or propriety of death sentence where the law
itself provides thereof in specific and well defined
criminal acts.
-RPC (1932) - Imposed death penalty for crimes of
treason, qualified piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide,
kidnapping, rape with homicide, etc. This list was
amended to include death penalty for leaders of
rebellion, hijacking, dangerous drugs, homicide with an
unlicensed firearm, etc.
-1973 Constitution nullified; Constitutional
Commission for the 1986 Constitution
-Voted that the death penalty can be
reinstated, the framers of the Constitution did
not forbid/completely abolish it. It merely
suspended the death penalty. Congress has the
power to re-impose the death penalty for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
“ Article III, Sec 19(1) Excessive fines
sall 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 may be reduced
to recluscion perpetua”
Note: At the ConstiComm,
Commissioner Rama pointed out that
“Never in our history has there been a
higher incidence of crime and that
criminality was at its zenith at the last
decade; did not want to leave society
helpless in the face of future upsurge of
crimes or other similar emergencies"
-The amendment did NOT ABSOLUTELY
ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY. The amendment
merely says that the death penalty shall not be imposed
unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it and if already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
-The Commission voted to re-incorporate death as a
penalty in the scale of penalties as provided in the RPC.
The mandate of the committee was to retain the death
penalty, while the main debate would be the
determination of the crime to be considered heinous.
-Constitutional exercise of this power entails:
a. That congress define or describe what was
meant by heinous crimes
b. That Congress specify and penalize by death,
only crimes that qualify as heinous in
accordance with the definition or description set
out in the death penalty bill and/or designate
crimes punishable by recluscion pereptua to
death in which latter can, death can 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
c. That Congress in enacting the death penalty bill
be motivated by “compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes”
ISSUE #2: WON RA 7659 provides sufficient
standards for the determination of the legal situation
warranting imposition of death penalty? - YES
a. Nothing in the constitutional provision
imposes a requirement that for the death
penalty to be valid, there must be a
positive manifestation in the form of
higher incidence of crime, or that it must
be resorted to as a last recourse when all
other reforms failed.
b. Test of heinousness applied to RA-
found to be sufficient
- RA 7659 was passed on December 1993, it amended
the RPC as Amended and other penal laws
- The bill defined heinous crimes as “grevious, odious,
and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their
inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness and
atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to
the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society”
- SC finds it a sufficient criterion of what is to be
considered a heinous crime.
1. Criterion is deliberately undetailed as to the
circumstances of the victim, the accused, place,
time, the manner of commission of crime, its
proximate consequences and effects on the
victim as well as on society, to afford the
sentencing authority leeway to exercise his
discretion in imposing the appropriate penalty in
cases where RA 7659 imposes the more flexible
penalty of recluscion perpetua to death
-2 types of crimes in the death penalty bill:
 Crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua
to death (scale):
-Ex: treason qualified piracy, parricide,
murder, infanticide, etc.; not capital crimes
per se, flexible penalties
-Premature to demand for a specification of
the heinous elements in each of the crimes
-Elements are only relevant when the court
is faced with a scale, but chooses to go to
the extreme and imposes death penalty
because it has found the attendance of
certain circumstances in the manner by
which the crime was committed, or in the
person of the accused on his own or in
relation to the victim, or in any other matter
of significance to the commission of the
crime or its effects on the victim or on
society, which circumstances characterize
the criminal acts as heinous
 Crimes penalized by mandatory death
penalty:
-Ex: qualified bribery, rape with the victim
becoming insane, rape with homicide and
qualified rape
-Upon the attendance of certain specified
qualifying circumstances
-It is specifically against the capital crimes
stated in RA 7659 that the test of
heinousness is applied;
-Evil of crime takes many forms,
crime:
1. By their very nature,
despicable, either because life
was callously taken or the
victim was treated like an
animal and utterly dehumanized
as to completely disrupt the
normal course of his or her
growth as a human being, the
right of a person to live a quality
life, and society is obligated to
respect the person and the
person’s integrity—in this light,
those crimes listed are shown to
be deserving of penalties
ranging from recluscion
perpetua to death
2. Abomination lies in the
significance and implications
of the criminal act in the
scheme of the larger socio-
political and economic context
in which the state finds itself
struggling to develop and
provide for its poor and
underprivileged masses, ex:
destructive arson, drug offenses,
etc.
- RA 7659 correctly identified crimes warranting the
mandatory penalty of death. As to the other crimes
punished by reclusion perpetua to death- the proper
time to determine their heinousness in contemplation
of law is on automatic review. BUT! Aggravating
circumstances under the RPC need not be
additionally alleged in order for the TC to validly
impose the death penalty for crimes under RA 7659,
which are punished with the flexible penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.
- RA 7659 provides the test and yardstick for retributive justice (eye for an eye). Forfeiture of life,
determination of the legal situation warranting simply because life was taken was never a defining
imposition of supreme penalty of death. essence of the death penalty.

- RA 7659 and RPC (on aggravating circumstances). - Death penalty is imposed because the heinous
may be construed in pari materia, crimes have so deeply dehumanized a person or the
(1) Death penalty may be imposed when aggravating criminal acts have severely destructive effects on the
circumstances attend the commission of the crime as to national efforts to lift the abject masses from poverty
make operative the provision of the RPC regarding the (public interest). Their acts have caused irreparable
imposition of the maximum penalty, injury to both the victim and society, and repetition
(2) Other circumstances attend the commission of the of the acts would pose an actual threat to the
crime which characterize it as heinous as contemplated individual and the government, so they must
by RA 7659. permanently be prevented from doing so.

- The Congress, in the interest of justice, order, and rule
of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the
penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling
reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes (does
not require death penalty to be a deterrent, just need
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes)
ISSUE #3: WON the death penalty imposed in rape is
violative of the constitutional proscription against
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment? - NO
a. WON death penalty is per se cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment?
NO (appellant’s contention, citing
Furman v. Georgia)
b. WON death penalty is cruel,
inhuman or degrading for the crime
of rape mainly because unlike
murder, it does not involve the
taking of life? NO (appellant’s
contention)
-Not question of life over death: re. the menaing of life
and the rights of the living
-Rape defined in People v. Cristobal
 "Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual
intimacy of another person. It does injury to
justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the
respect, freedom, and physical and moral
integrity to which every person has a
right. It causes grave damage that can mark
the victim for life. It is always an
intrinsically evil act xxx an outrage upon
decency and dignity that hurts not only the
victim but the society itself."

- Death penalty is not cruel and unusual per se, it was

nullified in the US decision on the Furman v. Georgia
case because the discretion of the statues vested in the
trial judges and sentencing juries was uncontrolled and
without any parameters, standards, guidelines, etc.

- Echegaray argues that rape does not involve the taking

of life, the rape victim may still repair life-it is not
completely taken away and thus should not be punished
with death.
 SC disagrees, short of homicide, rape is the
ultimate violation of self. It is violent crime
because it normally involves force, or the
threat of force and intimidation to overcome
the will or capacity to resist. Rape inflicts
mental and psychological damage, it
undermines the community’s sense of
security, so there is public injury as well.

- The premise on whether a crime warrants death on not

is gauged on the death of the victim is wrong, reverts to