DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES, A COMPARATIVE STUDY - RESEARCH PROPOSAL (1).docx

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 3 rd 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 drugrelated 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. limited to death penalty in the Philippine jurisdiction.

Lastly, this study is only

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 deafmute. 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 reimposition 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

communication.

quantitative

description

of

the

manifest

content

of

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.