The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Veneracion acted with grave abuse of discretion when he refused to impose the mandatory death penalty on two men convicted of rape and murder. While Veneracion disagreed with the death penalty due to his religious convictions, the Court maintained that judges must apply penalties according to the law, not their personal views. As the men were found guilty of a crime where the law specifies death as the penalty, Veneracion overstepped his jurisdiction in sentencing them to life imprisonment instead. The Court therefore granted the petition against Veneracion and modified the decision to impose the death penalty as required under the law.
Original Description:
People vs Veneracion Case Digest
G.R. Nos. 119987-88
October 12, 1995
The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Veneracion acted with grave abuse of discretion when he refused to impose the mandatory death penalty on two men convicted of rape and murder. While Veneracion disagreed with the death penalty due to his religious convictions, the Court maintained that judges must apply penalties according to the law, not their personal views. As the men were found guilty of a crime where the law specifies death as the penalty, Veneracion overstepped his jurisdiction in sentencing them to life imprisonment instead. The Court therefore granted the petition against Veneracion and modified the decision to impose the death penalty as required under the law.
The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Veneracion acted with grave abuse of discretion when he refused to impose the mandatory death penalty on two men convicted of rape and murder. While Veneracion disagreed with the death penalty due to his religious convictions, the Court maintained that judges must apply penalties according to the law, not their personal views. As the men were found guilty of a crime where the law specifies death as the penalty, Veneracion overstepped his jurisdiction in sentencing them to life imprisonment instead. The Court therefore granted the petition against Veneracion and modified the decision to impose the death penalty as required under the law.
October 12, 1995 Facts: Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero were both found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the rape and homicide of Angel Alquiza, and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law. Disagreeing with the sentence imposed, the City Prosecutor of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration, praying that the decision be modified in that the penalty of death be imposed against the accused, in place of the original penalty,reclusion perpetua. However, Veneracion, refused to act on the merits of the said motion. It was questioned whether or not the Judge Veneracion acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under R.A. 7659 on the accused, even after they were found guilty. Contention of the accused: Veneracion did so out of his religious convictions. Contention of the state: The state contends that Veneracion, after finding the accused guilty of such crime, was bound to the apply penalty with accordance to the provisions of R.A. 7659. Sec.11 of the same provides that When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death It is its bounden duty to emphasize that a court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific and well-defined instances. The discomfort faced by those forced by law to impose the death penalty is an ancient one, but it is a matter upon which judges have no choice.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion in decision against the accused Lagarto and Cordero
Decision: This is not a case of a magistrate ignorant of the law. This is a case in which a judge, fully aware of the appropriate provisions of the law, refuses to impose a penalty to which he disagrees. In so doing, respondent judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction in imposing the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua where the law clearly imposes the penalty of Death. Instant petition against the respondent judge was granted; Decision against Lagarto and Cordero was modified to death penalty.