DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES:

A COMPARATIVE STUDY

A Research Proposal

Presented to

DR. ARTHUR S. VELASCO, LLM, DCL

Professor

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF LAW

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Course

LEGAL WRITING

By

JUNA LUZ B. LATIGAY

CHRISTIAN JOY P. CARABBACAN

ED AL RENZI B. SALLES

ARVIN JAY C. VILLANUEVA

ELNERI SHERYN B. MARQUEZ

March 2017
 ABSTRACT

This is a descriptive type of research that aims to provide an in depth analysis of

the death penalty. Specifically, this study seeks to identify the difference between the

old death penalty and the one currently pending before the Congress, the significant

difference in the socio-political standing of the Philippines before and after death penalty

was suspended, the necessity to impose death penalty in the current Philippine

setting,the problems encountered by the previous government in the execution of the

old death penalty, and the solutions that may be advanced to address the problems

encountered in the past for better execution of the proposed reimposition of death

penalty.

The researchers will be using the provisions of the old death penalty and the one

currently pending before the Congress to derive the difference between the two. To

determine the significant socio-political difference between the period where death

penalty was imposed and suspended as well as the problems encountered by the

previous government, the researchers will use comparative analysis of jurisprudence,

statistics, news articles and other sources to extract the information.

The study aims to promote awareness as far as death penalty is concerned. It

aims to clear up confusions and provide a more detailed and thorough discussion as to

why or why not death penalty is needed in the current Philippine setting. It aims to give

not just law students but as well as the general public of what this bill entails and what it
might bring about. Furthermore, this research aims to determine whether or not death

penalty has an impact in the socio-political standing of the Philippines.

The study is limited to death penalty as how it used to apply in the Philippines. It

will cover the era when death was imposed as penalty for crimes considered as

heinous, such as rape and murder. Lastly, this study is only limited to death penalty in

the Philippine jurisdiction.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE ………………………………………………………………………………. i

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………. …………….ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………. iv

CHAPTER

• THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 1

Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………… 4

Objectives of the Study …………………………………………………………… 4

Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………. 5

Scope and Delimitation …………………………………………………………… 5

Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………... 6

• REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Synthesis of Related Literature and Cases ……………………………………. 7

Conceptual Framework …………………………………………………………. 15

Conceptual Paradigm …………………………………………………………… 16

• RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Method ………………………………………………………………...17

Sources of Data …………………………………………………………………..18

Data Gathering Procedure ……………………………………………………….18

 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Conceptual Paradigm of the Study …………………………………..16

 CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth

Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon which codified the death

penalty for 25 different crimes, the death penalty was also part of the Fourteenth

Century B.C. Hittite Code, Draconian Code of Athens in Seventh Century B.C., which

made death the only punishment for all crimes and in the Fifth Century B.C.’s Roman

Law of the Twelve Tablets. Death sentences were carried out by such means as

crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement.

Death penalty in the Philippines can be traced back during the Spanish Colonial

Era. Among the personalities sentenced to death, some of them are the famous

GomBurZa, who were guillotined, and the Philippine’s national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal,

who was executed through firing squad.

Death Penalty has been formally incorporated in our laws between 1946 and

1965, the year late Ferdinand Marcos became President, when 35 people were

executed, mainly convicted of particularly savage crimes marked by “senseless

depravity” or “extreme criminal perversity.” Following the EDSA People Power

Revolution that toppled Marcos from power, the then President Corazon Aquino

promulgated the 1987 Constitution, which abolished the death penalty “unless for

compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, Congress hereafter provides for it.”

In 1993, Congress passed RA 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, which reimposed

capital punishment for crimes such as murder, rape, big-time drug trafficking,

kidnapping for ransom, treason, piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, infanticide, plunder,

kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence or intimidation, qualified

vehicle theft and arson. Subsequently, in 1996, through RA 8177, the law was amended

prescribing death penalty by lethal injection for offenders convicted of heinous crimes.

Opposition from human rights advocate groups stimulated when controversial

executions in the year 1999 and 2000, during the term of the then President Joseph

Estrada, started such as the execution of Leo Echagaray on February 9, 1999, who was

convicted of raping his stepdaughter, and Alex Bartolome on January 4, 2000, who was

convicted of raping her daughter more than 100 times over two years, starting when she

was 16.

It was then in 2006, when the abolition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines

occurred, when the then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo sing RA 9346 or otherwise

known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.

Afterwards, questions of revival of death penalty in the Philippines were raised

being raised in the Congress. It is now during the term of President Rodrigo Duterte
where death penalty is in the process of materializing being it part of his campaign in

eradicating crimes, especially those crimes relating to illegal drug abuse.

The House of Representatives approves on 3rd and final reading the contentious

death penalty measure, House Bill No. 4727. Among the Congressmen of the House,

2016 voted in affirmative, 54 voted in negative and 1 voted in abstention.

The bill allows of either life imprisonment or death penalty for 7 drug-related

crimes. It also allows to be done either through hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection.

With that, different opinions as to the necessity and urgency, as determined by the

House of Representatives, of the death penalty to be imposed again elicited from

different groups advocating human rights. It is where the purpose of this study is deeply

rooted, in order to clarify issues circulating in the public.

Statement of the Problem

The study is a comparative analysis of the old death penalty and the new one

pending in the Congress. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following questions:

 • What is the difference between the old death penalty and the one

currently pending before the Congress?

• Is there a significant difference in the socio-political standing of the

Philippines before and after death penalty was suspended?

• Is it necessary to impose death penalty in the current Philippine

setting?

• What problems were encountered by the previous government in the

execution of the old death penalty?

• What solutions may be advanced to address the problems

encountered in the past for better execution of the proposed

reimposition of death penalty?

Objectives of the Study

The study will be conducted to have a comparative analysis of the old death

penalty and the new one pending in the Congress. Specifically, it aims to:

• Determine the difference between the old death penalty and the one

currently pending before the Congress.

• Determine if there is significant difference in the socio-political standing

of the Philippines before and after death penalty was suspended.

 • Know the necessity to impose death penalty in the current Philippine

setting.

• Identify the problems encountered by the previous government in the

execution of the old death penalty.

• Identify solutions that may be advanced to address the problems

encountered in the past for better execution of the proposed

reimposition of death penalty.

Significance of the Study

The study aims to promote awareness as far as death penalty is concerned. It

aims to clear up confusions and provide a more detailed and thorough discussion as to

why or why not death penalty is needed in the current Philippine setting. It aims to give

not just law students but as well as the general public of what this bill entails and what it

might bring about. Furthermore, this research aims to determine whether or not death

penalty has an impact in the socio-political standing of the Philippines.

Scope and Delimitation

The study is limited to death penalty as how it used to apply in the Philippines. It

will cover the era when death was imposed as penalty for crimes considered as

heinous, such as rape and murder. Lastly, this study is only limited to death penalty in

the Philippine jurisdiction.

Definition of Terms

For better understanding of this study the following terms are defined

operationally:

Death Penalty. It is the punishment of execution administered to someone

legally convicted of heinous crime.

Heinous Crime. It is an action that is not just illegal but is also considered as

hateful or reprehensible.

Human Rights. Inherent rights believed to belong justifiably to every person

including but not limited to right to life, liberty and property.

Socio-Political Standing. It is the durability and integrity of a current

government regime determined based on the amount of violence and terrorism

expressed in the nation by citizens associated with the state.

CHAPTER II
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the discussion of the relevant literature and cases.

Synthesis of Related Literature and Cases

R.A. No. 7659, also known "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain

Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, as Amended,

Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes" was approved on December 13,

1993 in line with the goal "to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous

crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes" as stated

in the whereas clauses. This reimposed the capital punishment since the Marcos era,

which was shortly suspended after the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution. In this

law, crimes punishable by death included murder, rape, big-time drug trafficking,

kidnapping for ransom, treason, piracy, qualified bribery, parricide, infanticide, plunder,

kidnapping and serious illegal detention, robbery with violence or intimidation, qualified

vehicle theft and arson. This law, which prevailed prior to the suspension of death

penalty on 2006, is very different to the objectives of the House Bill No. 01pending in

the House of Representatives. The said bill, known as "An Act Imposing the Death

Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9346,

Entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" and

Amending Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the "Revised Penal Code,"

and other Special Penal Laws, has drawn criticisms for only including drug-related
offenses as compared to the previous iterations of imposition of death penalty, which

coincides with current policy standing of incumbent President Rodrigo RoaDuterte.

Historically, capital punishment has been used in almost every part of the world.

Currently, the large majority of countries have either abolished or discontinued the

practice. In the Philippines, question whether capital punishment will have a deterrent

effect in crimes or will just decrease the value of human life.

Whereas on 23rd of September 2002, in Pagdayawon vs. The Secretary of

Justice the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed questions on the constitutionality of the

Death Penalty Law (Republic Act No. 7659), in relation to the Lethal Injection Law (R.A.

8177). The Philippine Supreme Court noted:

1. The death penalty is not a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. It is

an exercise of the state’s power to secure society against the threatened and

actual evil.

2. The offenses for which RA 7659 provides the death penalty satisfy the element

of heinousness by specifying the circumstances which generally qualify a crime

to be punishable by death.

3. RA 7659 provides both procedural and substantial safeguards to insure its

correct application.

4. The Constitution does not require that a positive manifestation in the form of a

higher incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven before

the death penalty may be prescribed. Congress is authorized under the

 Constitution to determine when the elements of heinousness and compelling

reasons are present, and the Court would exceed its own authority if it

questioned the exercise of such discretion.

The case of Leo Echegaray, the first Filipino to be meted death penalty through

lethal injection after the reinstatement of death penalty in 1993, has sparked

controversy with its implementation. Echegaray was accused rape of his 10-year-old

stepdaughterRodessaand was convicted by Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court in

Quezon City on 7 September 1994, with the death sentence automatically reviewed by

the Supreme Court and affirmed on 25 June 1996. He filed a motion for appeal, which

but was denied. The debate for and against the death penalty had been vigorous after

his case. In fact, in Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice, the Philippines Supreme Court

noted:

A last note. In 1922, the famous Clarence Darrow predicted that "x xx the

question of capital punishment has been the subject of endless discussion and

will probably never be settled so long as men believe in punishment."In our

clime and time when heinous crimes continue to be unchecked, the debate on

the legal and moral predicates of capital punishment has been regrettably blurred

by emotionalism because of the unfaltering faith of the pro and anti-death

partisans on the right and righteousness of their postulates. To be sure, any

debate, even if it is no more than an exchange of epithets is healthy in a

democracy. But when the debate deteriorates to discord due to the overuse
 of words that wound, when anger threatens to turn the majority rule to

tyranny, it is the especial duty of this Court to assure that the guarantees of

the Bill of Rights to the minority fully hold. As Justice Brennan reminds us "x

xx it is the very purpose of the Constitutionand particularly the Bill of Rightsto

declare certain values transcendent, beyond the reach of temporary political

majorities."Man has yet to invent a better hatchery of justice than the courts.

It is a hatchery where justice will bloom only when we can prevent the

roots of reason to be blown away by the winds of rage. The flame of the

rule of law cannot be ignited by rage, especially the rage of the mob which

is the mother of unfairness. The business of courts in rendering justice is

to be fair and they can pass their litmus test only when they can be fair to

him who is momentarily the most hated by society.

However, on 24th of June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into

law R.A. 9346 entitled ‘An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the

Philippines’. This law is equally important because for more than a decade, the country

never used capital punishment as a matter of recognizing the mandate of the country to

fulfill its obligations with the international community, as well as to preserve the sanctity

of human life and extend the right to life even to criminals who committed heinous

crimes. Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by

the United Nations (UN) General Assembly recognizes and upholds fundamental rights,

including the right to life. The Philippines is also bound by the Second Optional Protocol

to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a UN Treaty that the
country signed in 2006 and ratified a year later without reservations. Adopted by the UN

General Assembly in 1966 and enforced in 1976, the ICCPR obligates countries that

ratified it to protect and preserve basic human rights, primarily the right to life. Having

signed and ratified the protocol, the Philippines commits to the abolition of death penalty

definitively.

R.A. No. 9346, however, as explained in the book of Leonor Boado "Notes and

Cases On The Revised Penal Code (Books 1 and 2)", states that it:

"...merely modifies the penalty imposable for the crime covered by R.A. No. 7659

but does not affect the provision itself on how the crime is committed. It does not

affect the provision of R.A. 7659 on Art. 267 making the killing, rape, torture,

ransom-payment, etc., of the victim as qualifying circumstances in kidnapping. It

merely made the penalty imposable thereon as reclusion perpetua. However, for

all intents and purposes, the graduation of penalty between simple kidnapping

and kidnapping with homicide has been erased. Thus, it does not make any

difference now whether or nor the kidnap victim is killed or raped. It can therefore

be asserted that the new law is an absolutory cause insofar as the penalty is

concerned because the kidnapper can now go ahead and kill the victim after

ransom is paid for impunity for the penalty will be the same anyway. The same

can be said of other provisions of the Revised Penal Code and of the special

laws such as qualified carnapping." (p. 210)

Also from the same book, he explained how those convicted of death penalty are

ineligible for parole:

 The Indeterminate Sentence Law prescribes that "the court shall sentence the

accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which, in view of

the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the

said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next

lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense." The purpose of the

prescription of minimum and maximum periods is to effect the privilege granted

under the same law, for prisoners who have served the minimum penalty to be

eligible for parole per the discretion of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence,

Thus, convicts sentenced to suffer death penalty or life imprisonment are

ineligible under that law, as are persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua, an

indivisible penalty without minimum or maximum periods. (People vs.

Tubongbanua) (p. 211)

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon (G.R. 170236, 31 August

2006) involves an accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should have been

death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the penalty was reduced to

reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence

Law.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Santos (G.R. 172322, 8 September

2006) involves the rape of a 5-year old child. The accused was meted the penalty of

death because rape committed against a ‘child below seven (7) years old’ is a dastardly

and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment
under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The sentence was also reduced to

reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

The case of People vs. Salome (G.R. 169077, 31 August 2006) involves a rape

of a 13-year old girl (who got pregnant), committed in a dwelling and with the aid of a

bladed weapon. The imposable penalty should have been death, but with the abolition

of the Death Penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua,

without the possibility of parole.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua (G.R. 171271, 31 August

2006) involves the murder of a victim who suffered 18 stab wounds which were all

directed to her chest, heart and lungs. Considering the existence of the qualifying

circumstance of evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of dwelling,

and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigating circumstance, the

proper imposable penalty would have been death. However, with the abolition of the

death penalty law, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of

parole.

In Mateo, the Supreme Court first allowed an intermediate appeal to the Court of

Appeals in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or

life imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or

arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which

the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed). Before, cases
involving the said penalties are raised on automatic review directly to the Supreme

Court.

While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court

of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death,

nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost

circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is

imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a

review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.

Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or

innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can

ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly, the

factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. If the Court of

Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it

could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances

so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to

the Supreme Court for its final disposition.

Statistics would disclose that within the eleven-year period since the re-

imposition of the death penalty law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have

imposed capital punishment in approximately 1,493, out of which 907 cases have been

passed upon in review by the Court. In the Supreme Court, where these staggering

numbers find their way on automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in only 230
cases comprising but 25.36% of the total number. Significantly, in more than half or

64.61% of the cases, the judgment has been modified through an order of remand for

further proceedings, by the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or by a

reduction of the sentence. Indeed, the reduction by the Court of the death penalty to

reclusion perpetua has been made in no less than 483 cases or 53.25% of the total

number. The Court has also rendered a judgment of acquittal in sixty-five (65) cases. In

sum, the cases where the judgment of death has either been modified or vacated

consist of an astounding 71.77% of the total of death penalty cases directly elevated

before the Court on automatic review that translates to a total of six hundred fifty-one

(651) out of nine hundred seven (907) appellants saved from lethal injection.

Conceptual Framework

The study will show that an in depth comparative analysis of the old death

penalty and the new one pending in the Congress can be determined through actual

research activity. The relationship between and among the variables in the study is

being illustrated in the paradigm, Figure 1.

The first box is the variable input that shows the comparative analysis of the old

and the new proposed death penalty.

 The second box is the variable output that shows the significant differences of

the old and new proposed death penalty and better understanding of their applicability

in the Philippines.

The third box is the variable feedback that shows the effective measures to

develop the application of death penalty.

Effective measures for efficient application of the law.

Feedback

Comparative Analysis of the old death penalty law and the new one pending in the

Congress.
Significant differences of the two and better understanding of their applicability.

Figure 1

Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research method the researchers utilized, the sources

of data, the data gathering procedure, the research instrument used and the statistical

treatment the researchers used to interpret the data.

Research Method

The descriptive method of research will be used in this study. Descriptive method

of research is a fact-finding study with adequate and accurate interpretation of the

findings. It describes what is and describes with emphasis what actually exist such as

current conditions, practices, situations or any phenomena. Since the study deals the

analysis of death penalty and how it affected the Philippine society then and now, the

descriptive method of research was found to be the most appropriate to use.

To determine the difference between the difference between the old and the new

death penalty including the change in the socio-political standing of the Philippines at

the time of its imposition as compared to the time of its suspension, its necessity of

imposition in the current Philippine setting, as well as in determining the problems

encountered during its imposition before and possible recommendations that can be

gleaned therefrom , the researchers will content analysis as a research technique.

Content analysis is a method that deals with documentary materials are already existing

and available, used for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the

manifest content of communication.

Sources of Data

The primary sources of data will be jurisprudence laid down both by Philippine

and international courts. This will also include provisions from the 1987 Philippine

Constitution and the previous and current legislation pertaining to death penalty. Books,

dissertations, journals, PDF files, dictionaries, and online articles will also be utilized as

references.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers will be using the provisions of the old death penalty and the one

currently pending before the Congress to derive the difference between the two. To

determine the significant socio-political difference between the period where death

penalty was imposed and suspended as well as the problems encountered by the

previous government, the researchers will use comparative analysis of jurisprudence,

statistics, news articles and other sources to derive the information.