ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Search for www.chanrobles.comPLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SEPARATE OPINION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
This normally run-of-the-mill matter of granting an extension of time to file brief for the accused has merited vigorous and in-depth discussion in the Court because two monumental and hallowed doctrines appear to collide in its disposition.
On the one hand, there is the historically entrenched principle that impels this Court to review a decision imposing the death penalty. [1 Such historicity is reinforced by the pro-life provisions of our 1987 Constitution, one of which [2 had in fact prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, "unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it."
Upon the other, there is the legal, equitable and logical tenet that a person convicted by the lower courts must first submit himself to the jurisdiction of the appellate court before he/she can plead for the exercise of the said tribunal's power of review. [3 An escapee mocks the law and puts himself outside the protection of the judiciary.
Without repeating the legal arguments pro and con, as these were already eloquently presented by Mr. Justice Puno, Mr. Justice Padilla and Mr. Justice Francisco, I hold that the judicial taking of life cannot be left to mere legal logic. Life is too, precious to be settled by legalisms, however exalted. I believe that this Court cannot abandon its sacred duty to God and country to see to it that a lower court judgment that takes away life is ERROR FREE and can stand THE MOST SEARCHING SCRUTINY. [4 And at the same time, this Court must not enable an escaped convict to make a mockery of the foundations of human justice. Consequently, I believe we must combine the sacred with the human.
After prayer, study, reflection and discernment, I am thoroughly convinced that this Court has the inescapable duty to review this and similar life-taking decisions, but only after the accused is re-arrested and taken back into the custody of the law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to grant the accused's motion for extension to file brief and in view of the delay in the disposition of such motion due to the lengthy court deliberation thereon, to give her a new period of thirty (30) days from notice within which to file her Brief
Endnotes:
1 See U.S. vs. Laguna, 17 Phil. 533 (1910) and other cases cited in the ponencia.
2 Art. III, Sec. 19(1).
3 Sec. 8, Rule 124, Rules of Court provides:
xxx xxx xxx
"The court may also, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to foreign country during the pendency of the appeal"
4 In its review of death sentences, this Court has thus far affirmed only one; reversed another; commuted to reclusion perpetua two others; and remanded three cases for further proceedings. By refusing to review death cases of escaped convicts, this Court would be abetting executions of conceivably erroneous death sentences. This we must not allow.
