ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 138097. May 24, 1999]
ANDAN vs. THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC OF MALOLOS, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 24 1999.
G.R. No. 138097 (Pablito H. Andan vs. The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (Branch 14), Secretary of Justice, Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prisons and all other Public Officers acting under their control, Supervision and Instructions in relation to the Execution of petitioner Pablito H. Andan.)
G.R. No. 138477 (Pablito H. Andan vs. People of the Philippines, Regional Trial Court of Malolos-Bulacan (Branch 15), the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Secretary of justice and all Public Officers, representatives and other persons acting on their behalf and/or under their instructions.)
The Court Resolved to (1) ACCEPT G.R. No. 138197 (Pablito Andan vs. The Presiding Judge of the RTC 14, Malolos, Bulacan, Secretary of Justice, Director of Bureau of Corrections, et al.), a First Division case referred to the Court En Banc (2) CONSOLIDATE G.R. No. 138477 with G.R. No. 138097 and (3) NOTE AND GRANT the motion for leave of Court to make supplemental submissions and arguments with motion to admit the said supplemental submissions and arguments, dated 22 May 1999 filed by Atty. Theodore O. Te of the FLAG Anti-Death Penalty Task Force for petitioner.
On March 3, 1997, we affirmed the imposition of the death sentence on petitioner Pablito H. Andan for the crime of rape with homicide. In these separate petitions docketed as G.R. No. 138097 and 138477, which we have consolidated for joint decision, petitioner seeks to suspend his execution by lethal injection on the following grounds: first, that the eighteen-month period for in the paragraph of Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 1 of republic Act No. 8177 (entitled An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection as the Method of Carrying Out Capital Punishment, Amending for the Purpose Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 24 of the Republic Act No. 7659), otherwise known as the lethal injection law, has already irretrievably lapsed insofar as he is concerned; and, second, there is sufficient medical evidence on record to sustain a finding of rape; perforce, we should declare a mistrial and order the trial court to conduct a trial de novo of the case, and, in the meantime, suspend the execution of petitioner on May 28, 1999.
The procedural antecedents of these instant petitions are as follows:
In the case of People of the Philippines v Pablito Andan y Hernandez @ "Bobby", G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997 (269 SCRA 95), we affirmed the imposition of the death sentence on petitioner Andan.
Thereafter, petitioner Andan filed a Special Civil Action for Prohibition, Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as G.R. No. 132989 in the heels of a similar petition filed by Leo P. Echegaray which similarly questioned the constitutionality of the lethal injection law. On February 23, 1999, we issued a Resolution denying Andan's petition on the ground that the fundamental issues raised therein have been passed upon by the Court in its decision in G.R. No. 132601, entitled Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, et al., which upheld the constitutionality of the lethal injection law. The resolution in the Andan petition had long become final and entry of Judgement therein was duly made on March 15, 1999.
Now, petitioner Andan in G.R. No. 138097 wants to stop his execution on the ground that the eighteen-month period provided for in the fifth paragraph of Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 1, of R.A. No. 8177, which reads:
"The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor later than eighteen (18) months after the judgement has become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers at all times.
is mandatory and once said period has lapsed, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections can no longer carry out the death sentence, and we must declare and order petitioner to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death. This issue was raised in the petition in the previous case of Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, et al. al., G.R. No. 135828, which we denied in the Resolution of 10 November 1998 on the ground that it was filed manifestly for delay.
Unsatisfied with his petition in G.R. No. 138097, petitioner Andan also filed G.R. No. 138477, a special civil action for the issuance of the writs of equitable reliefs, such as Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Prohibition, with Application for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/Stay of Execution and/or Preliminary Injunction. This time, petitioner prays for the issuance of these writs, preferably after a hearing/oral argument before us, and a judgment declaring a MISTRIAL and ordering a NEW TRIAL and pending thereof, the issuance of a TRO enjoining petitioner's execution. Petitioner anchors his prayer for a new trial on the insufficiency of evidence supporting the finding of rape. In particular, petitioner cites the direct testimony of Dr Alberto Bondoc, who conducted the first autopsy on the cadaver of the victim, and who testified that he found no evidence of sexual intercourse in the genitalia of the victim. Petitioner bewails the fact that despite the contradictory testimonies of two (2) expert witnesses for the prosecution, Dr. Bondoc and Dr. Aguda, the trial court believed the testimony of Dr. Aguda over that of Dr. Bondoc that the victim had been raped, without explaining why it found Dr. Aguda's findings and testimony more credible.
After due consideration and deliberations on the allegations and arguments adduced in the petitions, we hereby RESOLVED as follows:
A. In G.R. No. 138197:
(1) To GRANT the petition insofar as it prays that Respondent Judge be ordered to furnish petitioner's counsel a copy of the Order setting the date of execution, however, counsel's attention is invited to the provisions of Article 82 of the Revised Penal Code, and Section 16 of the Amended Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177;
(2) To DISMISS the petition insofar as it seeks to suspend the date of execution of the petitioner on the ground that the eighteen-month period provided for in Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 1, of R.A. No. 8177 1 [The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year not later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers.] has already lapsed considering that such an interpretation thereof is not borne out by the law. On the contrary, in fixing therein a minimum or a maximum limit, the legislature merely wanted to give the death convict a reasonable period to avail of every legal remedy to obtain vindication of his innocence or ensure that his conviction is in accordance with law. The legislature could not have intended a literal interpretation of said provision that would lead to an absurd, if not unjust, situation where a death convict can escape from his death sentence by the mere expedient of filing numerous dilatory pleadings before this Court in order to delay his execution beyond the period provided by law. The delay in the execution can by no means defeat its final character or prevent its execution.
(3) To DISMISS the petition insofar as it seeks the commutation of the death sentence of petitioner to reclusion perpetua, since the reason adduced therefor does not exist in view of the disposition in the immediately preceding paragraph. Besides, the alleged failure of the State to execute a death convict by lethal injection within the period provided by law would not ipso jure result in the modification of the death sentence. Finally, the grant of commutation is a presidential prerogative pursuant to Section 19, first paragraph, of Article VII of the Constitution.
B. In G.R. No. 138477: To DISMISS the petition for lack of merit; considering that the basic question of guilt of petitioner has already been passed upon by us in G.R. No. 116437, entitled People of the Philippines vs. Pablito Andan y Hernandez @ "Bobby", 2 [269 SCRA 95 (1997)]. promulgated on March 3, 1997.
We find no valid ground to declare a mistrial thereof, nor for a new trial under Rule 121 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, no compelling reason exists to suspend the execution of the petitioner. On the whole, the petition appears to have been filed manifestly for delay, hence, even for that reason alone it is properly dismissible pursuant to Section 8, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
This Resolution is immediately executory, and no further pleadings will be entertained by us. Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., are on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
