ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Gentlemen;

Quoted hereunder, for your information, of a resolution of this Court dated SEP 7 2004.

G.R. NO. 147750 (People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Ebio y Hermida.)

This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused Gerry Ebio y Hermida of the Court's Decision dated October 14, 2002. The per curiam Decision affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his eleven-year old daughter, and sentencing him to death. In his motion for reconsideration, the accused calls the attention of the Court to the fact that only seven out of the fourteen Justices sitting in the Court signed the Decision. The other seven Justices were on official leave at the time. The accused now raises the issue whether the votes of only seven Justices of the Court sitting en banc can validly impose the death penalty and whether there is a need for a quorum when it sits en banc.

Article VIII Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides the composition of the Court and the number of votes required to render a decision, thus:

Sec. 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

There is no question that the Court's Decision in this case was concurred in by majority of the members of the Court who actually took part in the deliberations. It was in fact unanimously signed by the seven Justices who were present during the deliberations. The issue now is whether the seven constitute a quorum of the 14-member Court.

The term "quorum"' has been defined as "that number of members of the body which, when legally assembled in their proper places, will enable the body to transact its proper business, or, in other words, that number that makes a lawful body and gives it power to pass a law or ordinance or do any other valid corporate act."1 The question of the number of judges necessary to authorize the transaction of business by a court is as a general rule to be determined from the Constitution or statutory provisions creating and regulating the courts, and as a general rule a majority of the members of a court is a "quorum" for the transaction of business and the decision of cases.2

The Constitution is clear on the quorum when the Court meets by Division. There should be at least three members present for the Division to conduct its business. This may be deduced from paragraph 3 of Section 4 Article VIII. There is no similar pronouncement, however, when the Court meets en banc. The second paragraph of Article VIII Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution does not expressly state the number of Justices required to be present to constitute a quorum of the Court en banc. The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution are also silent on what constitutes a quorum when the Court is composed of only fourteen members. In case of doubt in a criminal case, especially where the death penalty is imposed, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.

Thus, in this case, considering that the life of the accused is at stake, we deem it wise to resubmit the case to the Court en banc for re-deliberation.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court resolves to RECALL the Decision dated October 14, 2002 and RESUBMIT the case to the Court en banc for RE-DELIBERATION.

Austria-Martinez and Carpio-Morales, JJ., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court