Facts: Alfonso Patalin and Alex Mijaque, herein accused were convicted of Robbery with Multiple Rape committed in the evening of August 11, 1984 against the Aliman family. They were meted the supreme penalty of death. At the time the crimes charged were committed in 1984, robbery with rape was punishable by death, however, by virtue of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty was abolished and all death penalties already imposed were reduced to reclusion perpetua. The decision for the present case was promulgated on June 14, 1995, after the effectivity of RA 7659 which restored the death penalty. Appellants now contend that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty as the same was suspended upon ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue: When the death penalty was abolished in 1987 and was retroactively applied to herein accused, did they gain a vested right thereto so that any future law restoring the death penalty would no longer cover them?
Held: Although at the time of the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution the present case was still its trial stage, it is clear that the framers intended the provision to have a retroactive effect on pending cases without any penalty of death having been imposed yet. The retroactive effect may be given during three possible stages of a criminal prosecution: a) when the crime has been committed and the prosecution began; b) when sentence has been passed but service has not begun; and c) when the sentence is being carried out. The abolition of the death penalty benefits herein accused by virtue of Art 22 of the RPC which provides that penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of the felony who is not a habitual criminal. Hence, they are subject to a reduction of penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. A subsequent statute cannot be applied retroactively as to impair a right that accrued under the old law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment