CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

During 1993, R.A. No. 7659, also known as An Act to Impose the Death

Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal

Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and for Other Purposes, took effect to

punish heinous crimes including those mentioned on the said act by means of

electrocution. However, upon imposition of R.A. No. 8177 on 1996, the means of

execution was changed by means of lethal injection. This effect of death penalty

lasted until it was suspended and prohibited by former President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo by R. A. No. 9346 on 2006, which reduced the penalty to

reclusion perpetua.

Presently, heinous crimes was committed continuously knowingly of the

imposable penalty, but it deemed to have no deterrent effect on the part of the

culprit. Felonious activities didnt only affect certain individuals, but post

disturbance and risks in the society. For instance, the massacre incident in Laguna

last April 20116, in which 4 of the family members died; and recently, an Australian

Pedophile, which last September 2016, was arrested for sexually assaulting and

killing children after being filmed as a means of his sexual gratification. 1

1
News.com.au. (2016, September 23). Australian Child Molester Peter Scully Faces Death Penalty in
Philippines. <http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/australian-child-molester-peter-scully-faces-death-
penalty-in-philippines/news-story/f15a28a8b971d95f815b5f6105814ff9>. Last Accessed: 15 October
2016, 5:30 pm.

1
 This was the compelling reason, upon the campaign and inauguration of

President Rodrigo Duterte, the presumptive revival of death penalty was brought.

It sought to counteract the increasing rate of crime, not only to post deterrent effect

but to secure the general welfare, especially on prevailing justice on the part of the

victims and their families, and to boost his administration in combat of drugs and

other heinous crimes.

However, dispute constituted its revival. Others sought it to be cruel,

inhumane and subjective, especially on the part of the convicted innocent, in

accordance to right to life, and dignity of every human person. That rehabilitation

by means of imprisonment should be enough as not to absurd constitutional rights

and remains the protection of convicted person. This arguments lead for a need of

thorough deliberation which deemed it crucial for its imposition.

Consideration of death penalty as a means of serving justice and its

deterrent effect should be justified to a draw line on its advantage and

disadvantages, and/or morality and constitutionality, including the laws which were

complementary or contrary to its existence.

Statement of the Problem

The rate of heinous crimes continued to inflate as it may be deemed

necessary for the implementation of death penalty to counteract the crime that

would suit to the offensive crimes. This penalty of death as may be imposed, upon

the passage of the its revival, sought to explain the circumstances as follows;

1. How does death penalty justify its purpose as on:

2
 1. Adequate means of serving justice and;

2. Deterrent effect for the commission of crimes?

2. How does the penalty affects the rights and laws including:

1. Constitutional rights and;

2. International rights

3. How does the means of execution take a stand in concurrence to

death penalty?

Significance of the Study

The research would be deem significant to the following:

Students. It would serve as a frame of reference and consciousness to

establish the facts on death penalty. It shall provide justification on the relationship

between life imprisonment and death penalty as capital punishment imposed or to

be imposed in the Philippines. It shall establish the differentiation if ever the latter

shall be implemented.

Public. This would help address the dispute on the revival and imposition

of death penalty as it builds basic discussion on death penalty and what law abides

and opposes to it. It encloses facts in proportionate to the increasing rate of crime

and determines the significant effects of it.

Future Researchers. This would serve as means for better insight to stand

between the need for execution or preservation of rehabilitation of imprisonment

as capital punishment. This seeks to substantiate death as capital punishment in

being morally just as its deterrent consequence fits the offensive crime.

3
Conceptual Framework

In the conceptual model of the study, the first box, which was the input box,

contained the justification and significance of the study. It sought to validate the

death penalty on its adequate means of justice and its effect on the commission of

the crimes. It also pursued to explain the rights and laws that could be abiding and

opposing to it, and the effect on choice of execution on death penalty.

The second box identified the process of the study. Data analysis would be

used for the facts and information gathered to evaluate the advantages and

disadvantages, and/or morality and constitutionality of the study, and also to

provide justification on the questions sought to be answered. It shall provide the

necessary inquiry of past enacted laws in relation of the present for comparison

and justification of the penalty.

The third box presented the output which shall extend the purpose of the

study. This revealed the analyzed data relevant to the questions sought.

Input Process Output

Justify its purpose as on:

a) adequate means of
serving justice and;
b) deterrent effect for the
commission of crimes? Facts on
Effects on the rights and laws Data Analysis advantages and
including: disadvantages on
a) Constitutional rights and; death penalty
b) International rights
Means of execution in
concurrence to death penalty

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

4
Scope of the Study

This study covered death penalty and its effects, either advantage or

disadvantage, in a State. This helped establish whether the crimes up-to-present

deems it necessary to revive the death penalty to counteract heinous offenses

which suits the crime, and justify whether it is an adequate means to serve justice.

It provided support and balance between the penalty and the rights that could be

in disruptive effect upon its imposition.

This study was limited to the facts on death penalty from the time it was

imposed and suspended, and the laws enacted to support and end its

promulgation. Included within were cases which were supposed to be penalized

but deduced by the imposed R.A. No. 9364; which may justify whether or not it is

necessary for its revival in comparison to the dreadful offenses committed, or retain

the effect of the assailed law. It also included rights, Constitutional and

International, which may be in contrary due to its role in protection and preservation

of every human person.

The research used a qualitative documentary analysis which included

scrutiny of past enacted laws and relates to present situation, by means of

recorded crimes, for comparison and justification of the penalty.

This study excluded the opinions and sentiments that may distress the study

subjectively and affect the analysis of the facts, and did not intend to persuade its

revival but only to provide facts and justification in preference of it.

5
Definition of Terms

Constitutional law. It refers to the Municipal law of the land which abides

the people of their rights and privileges, and equal protection stated by the law.

Death. It is the end of life of an individual taken depending upon certain

circumstances.

Death Penalty. It is a punishment by means of execution.

Execution. It is a punishment by means of taking ones life upon conviction

and final judgment under death penalty.

Human Rights. It refers to the rights and privileges in which innate and

written within the provisions of the Constitutional law, including the right to life,

property and liberty.

International law. It is a law entered into and ratified by the Philippines to

form part of the law which agrees to abide on its constitutional principles.9

Revival. It is a means of restoring or giving in-effect suspended acts or laws

under compelling reasons.

Penalty. It refers to the sanction or punishment imposed in accordance to

the crime committed.

6
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presented the research literature, conceptual literature, related

studies, and conceptual framework and paradigm that would provide

understanding and sustaining information on the study.

Related Literature

The gathered literature provided significant information from books,

electronic sources, and experts in the field of legal profession. This served as the

foundation for the study which widens the analysis of the research, and adequate

means for the examination of the study.

Death Penalty. Abolished in 1987, the death penalty was reintroduced in

late 1993 for a wide range of crimes, including rape, murder, kidnapping, drugs

offences, treason, piracy and bribery. Executions resumed in 1999 after a period

of 23 years. Seven people were executed by lethal injection between 1999 and

2000.8 President Joseph Estrada announced a suspension of executions to mark

the Christian Jubilee Year in 2000. When President Arroyo came to power in

January 2001, she initially continued the de facto moratorium but lifted it midway

through the year in response to pressure from anti-crime lobbyists and the

business community. In late September 2002 President Arroyo suspended

executions while a bill on prohibition was before Congress. The bill is still pending.

7
More than 1,000 people are estimated to be on death row. On the present, the

proposed suspension then now was implemented under Republic Act No. 9346.2

Republic Act No. 7659. On December 13, 1993, Former President Fidel

Ramos signed Senate Bill No. 81/House No. 62 into law as Republic Act No. 7659,

An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for

that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and for

Other Purposes. The enactment of the law took six years which could imply that

the Congress intelligently and thoroughly deliberated on its passage. Accordingly,

for a death penalty to be constitutionally valid, it shall be enacted for compelling

reason, and that reason must be in relation to heinous crimes. Its compelling

reason was stated on its third WHEREAS;3

WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has

resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property

but also affected the nation's efforts towards sustainable economic

development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the

people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and

order in the country;4

Republic Act No. 8177. Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection was

enacted to modify the practiced execution fixing it by the law on lethal injection. In

accordance to the said act, it stated:

2
Amnesty International. Philippines: Hanging Over Me-Child Offenders under Sentence of Death. 2003.
3
Sarmiento, A. (2000). Journey of a Retired Supreme Court Justice. UP Press. p. 112.
4
Republic Act No. 7659 (1993), Sec. 1.

8
 Section 1. Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 24 of
Republic Act No. 7659 is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. The

death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other penalty

and shall consist in putting the person under the sentence to death by

lethal injection. The death sentence shall be executed under the

authority of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, endeavoring so

far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the

sentence during the lethal injection as well as during the proceedings

prior to the execution.5

Republic Act No. 9346. Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed

and approved the Republic Act No. 9346, which suspended the imposition of death

penalty, and repealed the Republic Act No. 8177.

The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited.

Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven

(R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal

Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred

Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and

all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they imposed death

penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. 6

International law. The country was a party to the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) an international treaty that, among other

5
Republic Act No. 8177 (1996), Sec. 1.
6
Republic Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 1.

9
things, prescribed States to respect and observe fundamental freedoms. These

included freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom from cruel,

inhumane, or degrading punishment. The Philippines had also ratified the ICCPR's

Second Optional Protocol which urged States to abolish the death penalty and

prevented them from carrying out executions. The Philippines signed the ICCPR

on December 19, 1966 and ratified it on October 23, 1986. It opted to sign the

Second Optional Protocol on September 20, 2006. The annex was ratified on

November 20, 2007.

The Second Optional Protocol explicitly forbidden the Philippines and

others States who had ratified it from conducting executions within their

respective jurisdictions: "No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the

present Protocol shall be executed." It stated to believe that abolition of the death

penalty contributed to enhancement of human dignity and progressive

development of human rights, and convinced that all measures of abolition of the

death penalty should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to

life.

However, it provided for one exception: Countries who expressed

reservations only during the time of ratification or accession may resort to the death

penalty in times of war for those convicted of a most serious crime of a military

nature committed during wartime which the Philippines cannot claim the exception

10
because it did not make reservations when it ratified the Second Optional

Protocol.7

Constitutional law. By virtue of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the

death penalty was prohibited under par (2) Sec. 19 of Art. III of the said provision.

Though under the said provision it was prohibited, it is nonetheless final and

absolute. The Congress may for some compelling reasons reinstate the death

penalty as a deterrent to heinous crimes. This punishment had been recourse

during the Former President Joseph Estradas regime. Some offenders who were

convicted of heinous crimes by the final judgment were met by the harsh

punishment of lethal injection.

The argument on death penalty included (1) its means being inhumane and

ungodly on a predominantly catholic nation, (2) it inflicts traumatic pain to the family

of the victim and the advocates of pro-life in the society, (3) there was no showing

that the penalty was a deterrent to grave crimes, (4) under the Philippine laws,

there was remedial and reformative about penology, which shall almost always

work in favor of the accused, and (5) human life was a precious life to be taken

before a human judge.8

Human Rights. The question on human rights was fundamentally a

question of limitation of state power. History, after all, had been a story of

7
Taruc, L. (2016, August 2). Return of death penalty in PH 'violates' International law.
<http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/02/return-of-death-penalty-ph-violates-international-
law.html>. Last Accessed: 16 October 2016, 3:30 pm.
8
Lazo, R. Jr. (2006). Philippine Governance and 1987 Constitution. REX. pp. 114.

11
subjugation of people by authority. Justice Laurel referred to the government of

the lash which had made constitutions necessary. He said the history of the world

is the history of man and his arduous struggle for liberty. It is a history of those

brave and able souls who, in the ages that are past, have labored, fought and bled

that the government of the lash that symbol of slavery and despotism might

endure no more. It is the history of those great self-sacrificing men who lived and

suffered in an age of cruelty, pain and desolation, so that every man might stand

under the protection of great rights and privileges, the equal of every other man.

The existence of human rights and limitation of state power were explicitly

recognized by the Constitution sovereignty resides in the people and all

government authority emanates from them. The Constitution was both a

recognition that we are a free and sovereign people and an imposition on the State,

that it exists for the people and that its duty is to defend and protect the freedom.

As Diokno said, human Rights were more than a legal formulation, and yet

there was no better expression of what human rights was all about than

constitutional injunction: no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of

the laws, and the constitutional commitment: the State values dignity of every

human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. The decree of the

charter was as clear as it is categorical: one may not be denied his life, liberty, or

property without a hearing fairly conducted, and every Filipino was entitled to

human rights. The right to life required protection from undue and arbitrary

incursion into ones private affairs; the right to be secure in ones person, house,

12
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right to

be presumed innocent until proven guilty and to a fair and speedy trial. The right

to life demanded that he who has been held to answer for a crime be safeguarded

from all forms of torture, maltreatment, and inhuman punishment. The right to life

called for the perpetual abolition of the death penalty for whatever crimes. The right

to ones natural life called for freedom from the finality of man-made death the

ultimate offense against human dignity if not humanity itself.9

Congress did propose bills to sustain the administration of death penalty

House Bill No. 1, which said that it cannot be denied that illicit drugs had foisted

the country, and the malefactors had perpetuated crimes in the most repugnant of

manners. It ran to improve the penalties, under compelling need, in which current

penalties seemed to be no deterrent to the perpetrators.10

Including House Bill No. 513, it stated that death penalty was the strongest

deterrent the society had against heinous crimes. It sought to restore order in the

country and punish perpetrators equivalent to the crime committed. Since the

government had the highest interest in preventing heinous crimes, it should use

the strongest punishment available to deter the unlawful acts.11

9
Sarmiento, A. (2000). Journey of a Retired Supreme Court Justice. UP Press. pp. 5.
10
House Bill No. 1. 17th Cong. (2016).
11
House Bill No. 513. 17th Cong. (2016).

13
Related Studies

The gathered literature provides relevant information from related studies

that concurs to the present study. This provided relationship from previous

conducted studies for relevant correlation.

Based on the Constitution and the relevant researched decisions of the

Philippine Supreme Court, the constitutionality of Death Penalty in the Philippines

was consistently upheld by the highest tribunal in the land since its re-imposition

in 1994 until its legislative abolishment in 2006. The argument that death penalty

had fallen within the purview of the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual

punishment had also been consistently rejected by the Court. Therefore, since the

Constitution remained unchanged at present, it was prudent to conclude that the

constitutionality of death penalty would be upheld by the Supreme Court of the

Philippines if restored by the Philippine Nation through their legal representatives

in Congress.12

The results revealed that political factors were the most important in

explaining abolition of the death penalty. Higher levels of democracy, a democratic

transition, centrist executive in power, and abolitionist pressure through

membership in the Council of Europe and via regional peers all increased the risk

of abolition of the death penalty. Years passing without involvement in armed

conflict raised the risk of abolition, but only if some time already had gone by since

the conflict. Among the cultural factors, a legal system based on English common

12
Guerrero, J. A. (2011). An Eye for an Eye. Angeles University Foundation.

14
law lowered the risk of abolition early on in the period, but this effect waned over

time and in fact turned positive towards the end of the observation period. The

share of Muslims in the population, on the other hand, proved to be unrelated to

abolition when other factors are taken into account. The only socio-economic factor

that influenced abolition was how integrated a country was in the international

economy. Countries that were more dependent on economic relations with others

had a higher risk of abolition than economically more isolated countries. The

analysis provided no evidence that the level of development economic or human

influenced abolition of the death penalty, nor does it provided support for social

threat theories.13

While both a legal and moral examination was adopted to delve into the

legitimacy of execution as a legal punishment, a consideration of the strict moral

argument entailing that murderers deserved to die was partially discarded.

Although this addressed that many retributive arguments stem from the foundation

of desert being inherit to the capital punishment argument, emphasis was placed

on the contention that even if this proved true, State executions cannot be justified

due to their procedural faults. The inherit concept that murderers deserve to die

stemmed from historical foundations of criminal justice; however, it revealed more

crucial that capital punishment could not be justified despite these assertions.

Further work on the nature of desert and how it has come to formulate such a

13
Mortensen, A. K. (2008). Abolition of Death Penalty. University of Begen.

15
substantial component of one of the most highly contested forms of legal

punishment in modern society would prove invaluable.14

Adhering to the notion of the good deserving good and the bad deserving

bad, it was not to assume that desert was equal in any particular regard. Surely

desert would be meaningless if it were applied so loosely as to be arbitrary, but the

general notion stated above did not exclude the possibility of proportionally rather

than equality. The law of lex talionis prescribed equal proportions of harm retaliated

in the same manner as the original crime. Kant prescribed, on his theory of

punishment, equal proportions of harm levied against a culprit in a manner that

best suited the State. The intuitive notion conveyed in the statement of justice can

be maintained without necessitating equal proportions. Through a system of a

hierarchy of punishment a proportion was maintained, though not an equal

proportion, that preserved the intuitive notion of justice while conforming to the

limitations place by the moral character of the State as a punisher. This system

would not eliminate the death penalty altogether but limit was use to extreme cases

of heinous criminals. This would have the dual function of satisfying the demands

of justice while more clearly conveying societal outrage.15

However, executions as sacrificial rituals had been traced from Early New

England until today, and although the mode of execution had changed, the fact

that society was still attempting to bring about unity and peace had remained. Also

14
Mangan, T. (2015). Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Rejection of Punishment by Death. The
University of Colorado Boulder.
15
Mann, W. G. (2015). The Death Penalty Debate: A Critical Examination of the Moral Justification for
Capital Punishment. University of Central Florida.

16
carried over from Early New England, executions to today had been the ultimate

understanding that executions occur because of the divine approval of the State.

The idea that the execution was in fact taking place because the condemned had

violated a divinely imposed societal norm allowed for the possibility that a liminal

line between God and humanity still existed. Because this line still exists, the State

violated it when performing executions. The violation of the liminal line between

God and humanity ultimately meant that the death penalty cannot be justified

today.16

Related Cases

The gathered literature provided significant information from jurisprudence

to sustain the study. This sought to investigate facts and information that is deemed

essential to conclude and support the justification of the research.

In People v Echegaray, the accused was charged with Statutory Rape on

the basis which the gravamen of the said offense, as stated in paragraph 3, Article

335 of the Revised Penal Code, was the carnal knowledge of a woman below

twelve years old. The victim positively identified his father accused, as the culprit

of Statutory Rape which accounted how the accused succeeded in consummating

his grievous and odious sexual assault on her was free from any substantial self-

contradiction. The act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on his young

victim had become all the more repulsive and perverse. The victim's tender age

and the accused's moral ascendancy and influence over her were factors which

16
Williams, J. A. (2012). Seeing Execution as Breaching the Liminal Line: Undermining Modern Justification
for the Death Penalty.

17
forced Rodessa to succumb to the accused's selfish and bestial craving. The law

had made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused face

the supreme penalty of death.17

In People v. Bartolome, the submission of the victim did not indicate consent

which she had been repeatedly abused by her father for more than a hundred

times. On the occasion of all those rapes, the accused inflicted upon her bodily

injuries and continuously threatened to kill her. Considering the strength and the

moral ascendancy of her father, the victim obviously knew that any opposition or

resistance on her part would be futile. It must be emphasized that in this type of

incestuous rape, the degree of force or intimidation need not be the same as in

other cases of rape where the parties involved have no relationship at all with each

other, because the father exercises strong moral and physical control over his

daughter. The Court ruled that although four members of this Court maintained

their position that Republic Act No. 7659 insofar as it prescribed the death penalty

was unconstitutional, they nevertheless submitted to the ruling of the majority that

the law was constitutional and that the death penalty should be imposed in the

case at bar.18

In People v. Fabon, there having been sufficient and convincing evidence

by the prosecution, the court found and so held the accused liable for robbery with

homicideas charged. Robbery with Homicide was defined and penalized under

Article 294, number 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 with

17
People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472 (June 25, 1996).
18
People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 129054 (September 29, 1998).

18
the penalty of Reclusion perpetua to Death, when by reason or on occasion of the

robbery, the crime of Homicide shall have been committed or when the robbery

shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. The

homicide committed by the accused on the occasion of the robbery of victim

Bonifacia Lasquite was perpetrated inside her home. Consequently, the

aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated to maximize the

penalty. 19

In People v. Licayan, under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended by R.A. 7659, imposed the penalty of death if the person kidnapped was

a female or if the crime was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from

the victim or any other person. These circumstances being in the case, the crime

proven to have been committed by accused was kidnapping for ransom thus

finding accused Roderick Licayan and Roberto Lara guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and sentencing each of them to

death. 20

In People v. Comadre, the undisputed facts showed Antonio Comadre was

in the act of throwing the hand grenade and he was unable to give any explanation,

neither was it able to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the

scene of the crime. Hence, the positive identification by eyewitnesses Jimmy

Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat and Gerry Bullanday prevailed over their

19
People v. Fabon, G.R. No. 133226 (March 16, 2000).
20
People v. Licayan, G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 (August 15, 2001).

19
defense of alibi and denial. The Court held that the maximum penalty for the most

serious crime (murder) was imposed by death penalty.21

In People v. Balmes, the perpetrator of the rape hoped to build a climate of

extreme psychological terror, which would numb his victim into silence and

submissiveness. In fact, incestuous rape further magnified this terror for the

perpetrator in these cases, such as the victims father, was a person normally

expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Considering the relationship

between AAA and Quirino, the rape would have warranted the imposition of death

penalty. However, when the decision was promulgated in 2009, Republic Act No.

9346 already prohibited the imposition of death sentence. Thus, the penalty of

reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.22

In People v. Barberan and Delos Santos, the victim was able to sufficiently

narrate with clarity the circumstances attending the crime from the time she was

awaken when Barberan and Delos Santos entered her room and physically

restrained her to successfully consummate carnal knowledge. The Court held that

when the offended party is young and immature girl, they were inclined to lend

credence to her version of what transpired, considering not only their vulnerability

but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed.

According to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, whenever rape was

committed by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpertua to

21
People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559 (June 8, 2004).
22 People v. Balmes, G.R. No. 203458 (June 6, 2016).

20
death. However, upon the enactment of R.A. 9346, the Court imposed penalty of

reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in lieu of the death penalty.23

In People v. Brioso, the penalty for the rape committed by Brioso of

Statutory Rape provided that the death penalty shall be imposed since the victim

was below seven years old. However, following the Republic Act No. 9346, the

Court imposed upon accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, but

without eligibility for parole.24

In People v. Caballero, it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Judge

Velasco was killed in which all the elements of the crime of murder attended the

case. Treachery was present when Judge Velasco was shot in the back and he

was in a position where he could not defend himself. Under Article 248 of the

Revised Penal Code, the crime was punishable by reclusion perpertua to death.

Due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance, accused must suffer

reclusion perpetua, not eligible for parole pursuant to Sec. 3 of the Republic Act

No. 9346.25

In People v. Dela Rosa, knowledge of the offender of the mental disability

of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qualified the crime

and made it punishable by death under par (10) Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal

Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353. In this case, such knowledge was

properly alleged in the information and was sufficiently proven by the prosecution.

23 People v. Barberan and Delos Santos, G.R. No. 208759 (June 22, 2016).
24
People v. Brioso, G.R. No. 209344 (June 27, 2016).
25
People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 210673 (June 29, 2016).

21
With the enactment, however, of Republic Act No. 9346, the imposition of the death

penalty had been prohibited without declassifying the crime of qualified rape as

heinous. Thus, the trial court and the appellate court correctly imposed the penalty

of reclusion perpetua.26

In People v. Enriquez, R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act of 2002 prescribed life imprisonment to death, and a fine ranging from PhP 500

000.00 to PhP 10 000 000.00 as penalties for violations of Sec. 5, Art II thereof.

The passage of the Republic Act No. 9346 proscribed the imposition of death

penalty thus the appellate court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a

fine of PhP 500 000.00.27

In People v. Gregorio, et. al, since the accuseds guilt for the crime of

kidnapping for ransom had been established beyond reasonable doubt, they

should be meted the penalty of death under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code,

as amended. However, Republic Act No. 9346 already prohibited the imposition of

death penalty. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly sentenced accused

to reclusion perpetua in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole.28

In People v. Ilogon, statutory rape as penalized under Art. 266 (1), carried

the penalty of reclusion perpetua unless attended by qualifying circumstances

defined under Art. 266-B. In the case, the victim was below seven, specifically six

years old at the time of the crime, the imposable penalty was death. The passage

26
People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 206419 (June 1, 2016).
27
People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 214503 (June 22, 2016).
28
People v. Gregorio, et. al, G.R. No. 194235 (June 8, 2016).

22
of Republic Act No. 9346 debarred the imposition of the death penalty without

declassifying the crimes qualified rape as heinous. Thus, the penalty of reclusion

perpetua should be imposed without eligibility for parole.29

In People v. Medina, the prosecution presented proof of the required

elements form statutory rape. The victims age, only four during the crimes, was

evidenced by her Birth certificate and was stipulated by the parties. The victim

likewise positively identified in court the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.

Thus, the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in accordance to R. A.

No. 9346.30

In People v. Suedad, the courts appreciated the circumstances of minority

and relationship that qualify the crime of rape and increase the severity of the

penalty. The victim was eleven (11) years old at the time of the rape incidents and

the accused was her father. The passage of R.A. No. 9346 however debarred the

imposition of the death penalty, thus the appellate court correctly reduced the

penalty from death penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.31

In People v. Concepcion and Morales, the trial court found that the killing

was attended by treachery and the accused had conspiracy by the fact that the

arms of the victim were held when he was stabbed. Thus, under Art 248 of the

Revised Penal Code the crime of murder was punishable by reclusion perpetua to

29
People v. Ilogon, G.R. No. 206294 (June 29, 2016).
30
People v. Medina, G.R. No. 214473 (June 22, 2016).
31
People v. Suedad, G.R. No. 211026 (June 8, 2016).

23
death. Upon consideration of R.A. No. 9346, the imposed penalty was reclusion

perpertua.32

In People v. Fuentes, Jr. under Art. 266-B, the death penalty shall be

imposed if the crime of rape was committed when the victim was under eighteen

(18) years of age, and the offender was a parent, ascendant, step-parent,

guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or

common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. In the case, the accused shall be

sentenced to death penalty, being the uncle of the victim. However, under R.A. No.

9346, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion perpetua without eligibility for

parole.33

In People v. Bacero, the court was convinced for the crime of Robbery with

Homicide, which under Art. 294 sec. 9, it was deemed punishable by reclusion

perpetua to death. However, since R.A. No. 9346 was in effect, the accused shall

be punished by reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.34

In People v. Balisong, the testimony of the witness, an 8-year old boy,

ascertained that the accused raped and killed the victim, which included on his

statement the time when the accused inserted his penis to the anus and/or vagina

of the victim. The Court gaveweigh on the witness credibility, thus affirming the

32
People v. Concepcion and Morales, G.R. No. 212206 (July 4, 2016).
33
People v. Fuentes, Jr., G.R. No. 212337 (July 4, 2016).
34
People v. Bacero, G.R. No. 208527 (July 20, 2016).

24
decision for rape with homicide and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua

without eligibility for parole.35

In People v. Espia, the accused admitted taking the cash, checks and

pieces of jewelry of the victim, and some were found on the house of its co-

accused. The contemporaneous acts of the accused sustained the accusations.

Thus, the Court proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt the accused of the crime

of robbery with homicide and sentence him to suffer reclusion perpertua in

accordance to R.A. No. 9346.36

In People v. Geron, the court found the accused guilty of murder and

attempted homicide. It was also found that the presence of treachery to qualify the

crime of murder. Since the crime was punishable by death, it was barred by the R.

A. No. 9346, then reducing it to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.37

In People v. Olazo et.al, under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when by reason or

on occasion of the crime of Robbery with violence against or intimidation of

persons, the crime of Homicide was committed. Considering presence of

aggravating circumstances, the higher penalty shall apply however, due to

imposition of the R.A. No. 9346, the imposition of death had been prohibited and

in lieu thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.38

35
People v. Balisong, G.R. No. 218086 (August 10, 2016).
36
People v. Espia, G.R. No. 213380 (August 10, 2016).
37
People v. Geron, G.R. No. 208758 (August 24, 2016).
38
People v. Olazo et. al. G.R. No. 220761 (October 25, 2016).

25
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

This chapter presented the research design used for collection of data

necessary for the analysis and interpretation of data.

Research Design

This research used a descriptive research, specifically a documentary

analysis which involves examination of records and documents. A qualitative

descriptive research determined the phenomenon of interest. Its purpose was to

study intensely the phenomenon or situation to discover themes of life events in

accordance to the research sought to be answered.39

The information and facts based on cases, studies, and constitutional

provisions were used to analyze and synthesize into relevant interpretations in

accordance with the problems sought to be answered.

To apply qualitative descriptive research, it involved phenomenon in which

its description was unclear. To gain clarity, researcher study the phenomenon from

a vantage point which included acquisition of new information. However,

information must be taken from different vantage point to post a clearer

description.40

39
Parse, R. (2001). The Path of Sciencing. NLN Press
40
Streubert, H. & Carpenter, D. (2011). Qualitative Research in Nursing.

26
 Its purpose lied to explore, explain and describe a phenomenon,

synonymously included to understand, develop and discover. It built a rich

description of complex circumstances that are unexplored in literatures.41

41
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research. Fith Edition. SAGE.

27
 CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETRATION OF DATA

This chapter sought for the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the

gathered data.

Death penalty: Adequate means of Justice and Deterrent effect

Under the 1987 Constitution, it includes provision in protection of the

general welfare and maintenance of public welfare. Under Art. II Sec. 4 of the

1987 Constitution:

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the
people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and,
in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.42

The prime duty and responsibility of the government is to serve and protect

the people. The government must protect the people from lawlessness violence

and undesirable element of the society, and must likewise secure the people from

external aggression.43

It enforced that as a Government, it has to protect all the people within its

territory as mandated by the Constitution. It is sustained by the preceding

provision, Art. II, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution:

42
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 4.
43
Lazo, R. Jr. (2006). Philippine Governance and 1987 Constitution. REX. pp. 68.

28
 Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential
for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.44

The government shall maintain peace and order as contemplated under the

constitution. The Philippines is envisioned to be peaceful, free, nationalistic, just

and humane society where everyone is enjoined to observe under any given

circumstances.45

Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.46

Every citizen of the Philippines shall acquire and avail the utmost justice

without discrimination, and has the right to be served with due process. It shall be

maintained that due process is not a sustenance of judgement but a means of

seeking and serving righteous justice for everyone without the influence of sex,

status, position and the like. It must be viewed that social justice is not an exclusive

right but a States obligation as part of the protection of the general welfare.

Arising criminal circumstances caused some members of the Congress to

enact effective measures to counteract the crimes. It includes House bill No 513

explaining the need for the revival, stating that:

Crimes disturb the order of society. The alarming rise of heinous

crimes in our country calls for the re-imposition of the capital punishment.
The death penalty is said to be the strongest deterrent society has against

44
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 5.
45
Lazo, R. Jr. (2006). Philippine Governance and 1987 Constitution. REX. pp. 69.
46
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 10.

29
 such crimes. It aims to restore order and adequately punishes criminals. The
penalty also serves as retribution for victims and their families.
Since the government has the highest interest in preventing heinous
crimes, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter unlawful
acts- death penalty. If criminals charged guilty of committing heinous crimes
are sentenced to death and executed, potential criminals will think twice
before committing crimes for fear of losing their own life.47

However, Prof. Winnie Monsod deemed it unnecessary to re-impose

death penalty stating that:

The premise of Senator Sotto that the death penalty should come back
because the crime rates have been increasingof heinous crimesis not
supported by facts. That's number one.

Number two: This is the third time we've talked about death penalty and
it's the same arguments except that, since the time we last talked about it,
2003 or 2004, many studies have come out showing that indeed, death
penalty has a deterrent effect.

The deterrent effect is not the only reason why there is controversy
about death penalty. There is, too, the morality of the situation. When one
takes a life or when one destroys a life, should one's life be destroyed? Well,
if you are in the Old Testament, yes it should; when you are in the New
Testament, no it should not. So there is controversy.

But even if there is no controversy, even if there is no deterrent effect,

is the death penalty proper now at this time for the Philippines?

And the answer is, No.

Why?

Because we have a flawed criminal justice system which does not

guarantee that it is the guilty one who is convicted and the innocent one is
freed.

Bakit?

When we live in a justice system where hindi nahuhuli 'yung guilty or

nakaka-eskapo sila or nakakabili sila ng magandang decision? Worse, we
live in a system where innocent people get convicted because wala silang

47
House Bill No. 513. 17th Cong. (2016).

30
 access to legal services. Ayan ba ang gusto natinthat ten guilty men go
free and even more innocent men get convicted? Hindi puwede yan.

This is the only time na agree ako na makalusot ang pasaway because
the decision is irreversible. 'Pag nabitay ang innocent person, that's the end.

Forgive me for allowing pasaways to go ahead because there are so

many innocent persons that may indeed be punished unjustly.48

From the statement above, it is said that death penalty shall not be imposed

due to the high risk of convicting and executing an innocent accused. On the

criminal system today, there is no guarantee that it has been accurately suggesting

a guilty accused, thus probability of executing an innocent accused or convicting

the righteous perpetrator is subject to misapprehension. Neither deterrent effect

upon imposition is not proven to decline the criminal circumstances.

Death penalty: Constitutional and International Rights

Philippines is a part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (ICCPR) an international treaty that, among other things, prescribes

states to respect and observe fundamental freedoms. It involves defiance from

cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment. The Philippines consented the

ICCPR's Second Optional Protocol which promotes the abolishment of death

penalty and prevents it from taking effect. The Philippines signed the ICCPR on

December 19, 1966 and ratified it on October 23, 1986. It opted to sign the Second

Optional Protocol on September 20, 2006. The annex was ratified on November

20, 2007.

48
Monsod, W. (2014, February 13). Bawal Ang Pasaway: Should the Philippines bring back the death
Penalty. <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/349316/opinion/bawal-ang-pasaway-should-the-
philippines-bring-back-the-death-penalty>. Last Accessed: 14 November 2016, 5:00 pm.

31
 The Second Optional Protocol explicitly forbids from the conduct of

execution within their respective jurisdictions: "No one within the jurisdiction of a

State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed." It state to believe that

abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and

progressive development of human rights, and convinced that all measures of

abolition of the death penalty should be considered as progress in the enjoyment

of the right to life.49

From the ratification of the Philippines as part of the ICCPR, one of its

provision under Art. 6 stating that:

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence
of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in
accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the
crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and
to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final
judgement rendered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is
understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to
the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation
assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the
sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by
persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on
pregnant women.

49 49
Taruc, L. (2016, August 2). Return of death penalty in PH 'violates' International law.
<http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/02/return-of-death-penalty-ph-violates-international-
law.html>. Last Accessed: 22 October 2016, 4:00 pm.

32
 6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the
abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present
Covenant.50

It is stated that for countries who have not abolished, death penalty may be

imposed only to most serious crimes. Also, under R.A. No. 9346, the application

and imposition of death penalty is thereby prohibited. However, the act did prohibit

the imposition of the said penalty but had not absolutely abolished it. Evidently, by

the use of prohibition, it is within the intent from its enactment that future revival

and imposition is anticipated upon presence of compelling reason.

It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or

severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The fact that the

punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual.

Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, the

punishment must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive," "wholly disproportionate

to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community."51

The argument on the humanity of death penalty draws between justified act

from the felonious crime and inhumane in its nature. In accordance to Art. II, Sec.

11 of the 1987 Constitution, the State as part of its protection in life, liberty, and

property of the people, is entitled to respect their dignity.

Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.52

50
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. December 19, 1966.
51
People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647, 655 (1953); People v. Dionisio, No. L-15513, March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA
1299, 1301-1302.
52
CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 11.

33
 From the perspective of the Commission on Human Rights, every individual

has to be respected of their lives, and criminal charges are not justified to be a

compelling reason for killing the convict. It runs to maintain rehabilitation on

imprisonment than re-imposition of death penalty. The death penalty is viewed as

contrary to public morals and felonious punishment in itself.

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.53

From Sec. 19 of the Bill of Rights, it provides an exception for compelling

reason. This is within the intent of the framers that death penalty is imposable upon

evident heinous crime.

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.54

For instance, recently in People vs. Geron case, it was ruled that:

The court found the accused guilty of murder and attempted

homicide. It was also found that the presence of treachery to qualify the
crime of murder. Since the crime is punishable by death, it was bar by the
R. A. No. 9346, then reducing it to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole.55

53
CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1.
54
CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 19.
55
People v. Geron, G.R. No. 208758 (August 24, 2016).

34
 From the facts of the case, the accused did commit a heinous crime, which

is deemed punishable by death as per proof. However, due to imposition of R.A.

No. 9346, it was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Crimes of the present, punishable by death but bar by R.A. No. 9346,

continues to be committed despite knowledge of punishment. The punishment

under the Revised Penal Code and suspension of death penalty, deems it

necessary for Congress to propose bill on the revival of the death penalty. One of

which includes House Bill No. 1, which explains that:

There is denying that the scourge illicit drugs have foisted upon our
society, and neither is there any denying the audacity with which
malefactors, whether under the influence or otherwise, have perpetuated the
most perverse and atrocious crimes in the most repugnant of manners.
Our criminal justice system has had to make do with penal laws that
are perceived to be less than dissuasive. Theres evidently a need to
reinvigorate the war against criminality by reviving a proven deterrent
coupled by its consistent, persistent, and determined implementation. And
this need is as compelling and critical as any.
The imposition of death penalty for heinous crimes and the mode of
its implementation both subject of repeal laws, are crucial components of an
effective dispensation of both reformative and retributive justice. 56

Although the bill itself proposes its objective, a precise and thorough

justification needs to be proven and established because although presently,

crimes manifest no deterrent effect on the basis imposition of R.A. 9346, it needs

to be considered that deterrent effect should not be only the criteria to take into

account for the revival of death penalty. Several factors has to be considered,

56
House Bill No. 1. 17th Cong. (2016).

35
otherwise, may be prejudicial in general and constitute question of constitutionality

by the community.

Death penalty: Means of Execution

Death penalty provides various means to employ death penalty. Under the
House Bill No. 01:

Section 24. Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby

further amended to read as follows:
Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. the
death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other penalty
and shall consist in putting the person under the sentence to death by
[electrocution] ANY OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
A) HANGING;
B) FIRING SQUAD; OR
C) LETHAL INJECTION
The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the
director of [Prisons] CORRECTIONS [endeavoring so far as possible
to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during lethal
injection as well as during the proceedings prior to execution] WHO
SHALL TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE HANGING, FIRING
SQUAD OR LETHAL INJECTION TO BE ADMINISTERED IS
SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE THE INSTANTENOUS DEATH OF THE
VICTIM.
[If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be
anaesthetized at the moment of the electrocution.]
PURSUANT TO THIS, ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE
HANGING, FIRING SQUAD AND IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
LETHAL INJECTION SHALL BE TRAINED PRIOR TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF SUCH TASK.
THE AUTHORIZED PHYSICIAN OF THE BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATIONS, SHALL
OFFICIALLY MAKE A PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE CONVICTS
DEATH AND SHALL CERTIFY THERETO IN THE RECORDS OF THE
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS.
THE DEATH SENTENCE SHALL BE CARRIED OUT NOT
EARLIER THAN ONE (1) YEAR NOT LATER THAN EIGHTEEN (18)
MONTHS AFTER THE JUDGEMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND
EXECUTORY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EXERCISE BY THE
PRESIDENT OF HIS EXCUTIVE CLEMENCY POWERS AT ALL
TIMES.57
xxx

57
House Bill No. 1. 17th Cong. (2016).

36
 However, under House Bill No. 513, it proposes to use lethal injection as

implemented under R.A. No. 8177 stating that:

Section 1. Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 24

of Republic Act No. 7659 is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. The
death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other
penalty and shall consist in putting the person under the sentence
to death by lethal injection. The death sentence shall be executed
under the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the
person under the sentence during the lethal injection as well as
during the proceedings prior to the execution.
"The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall take steps to ensure
that the lethal injection to be administered is sufficient to cause the
instantaneous death of the convict.
"Pursuant to this, all personnel involved in the administration of
lethal injection shall be trained prior to the performance of such task.
"The authorized physician of the Bureau of Corrections, after
thorough examination, shall officially make a pronouncement of the
convict's death and shall certify thereto in the records of the Bureau
of Corrections.
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor
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 at all times."58
xxx

Office of the Solicitor General has stated that the Court has already upheld

the constitutionality of the Death Penalty Law, and has repeatedly declared that

the death penalty is not cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. On its

execution, lethal injection, as imposed under R.A. No. 8177, is constitutional being

the most modern, more humane, more economical, safer and easier to apply in

58
House Bill No. 513. 17th Cong. (2016).

37
comparison with prior means that of electrocution or the gas poising.59 Although

recognized to be non-derogative, professing as modern procedure would not

suffice to persuade the community. It has to lay down greater aspects that would

prove its constitutionality, for the present time and presumptive revival, otherwise

has to alter the means of execution that would greater comply the objective of

death penalty an instantaneous execution without lingering the pain.

Thus, means of execution has to be deliberated thoroughly as not to impose

any impediments nor provide marks of rudeness. Justice, and its deterrent effect

has to be taken into account of determination, and not being subjective by its

sentiments on the crimes committed. Otherwise, its objective are not for public

order.

59
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601 (January 19, 1999).

38
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
STUDY

This chapter presented the summary, conclusion and recommendation

based on the analysis of gathered information.

Summary

It was undeniable that heinous crimes was committed abruptly with

knowledge of its consequences, but it then penalty seemed not to deter the part of

the culprit. This alarming situations brought the government for the possibility of

re-imposing death penalty as a measure against violence and lawlessness.

Accordingly, its a situation that didnt only affect the offended party but the sake

of the State since its causing unsafe environment and disturbance to the national

security.

The said situation deemed it necessary to conduct descriptive analysis to

determine the balance between the need for death penalty or retain imprisonment

as means of rehabilitation and reformation. It sought to observe death penalty as

a means of serving justice, its method and effect against human rights and

international laws. Information were gathered and laid down to scrutinize the

constitutionality and morality of the said penalty.

As a State, its inherent in its power to protect and serve the people.

Considering that death penalty was suspended by Former President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo on 2006, it didnt ban its restoration. Presently, heinous crimes

were rampant within the country and most of which awee punishable by death

39
penalty but deduced to life imprisonment. This alarming situation compelled the

government of the idea for the restoration of death penalty.

However, death penalty was contested to be cruel, inhumane and unjust to

impose upon convicts, and against human rights and international law. It was a

deterioration of morality, and deprivation of the chance for rehabilitation and

reformation for the convicts. International laws advocated the demolition of death

penalty for full enjoyment of right to life, and promoted enhancement and progress

on human rights and dignity.

Conclusion

Analysis of data dealt on the need for death penalty to establish its necessity

to the present time, aside from the increasing felonious crimes. The government is

indulged in protecting the State to any anarchy by all means suitable upon

compelling reason. Its lodged with the conflict of determining constitutional

measures against morality of human being. Every legislation are presumed to be

constitutional considering that its enacted for the benefit of the general welfare

and national security, unless otherwise contrary exist.

Considering the individuals right, the preservation of life and right of an

individual has to be established if an act may cause deprivation and deterioration,

as to uphold if such is unconstitutional. It must be sustained that the measures

imposed are excessive and unlawful in relation to the crime, and unconstitutional

due to the possibility of convicting an innocent person. It shall not be enclosed to

sympathize the convict or accused if the evidence and manifestation speaks on

the contrary, otherwise, justice on the offended party may be prejudicial.

40
 Thus, the enactment of penalty can be said constitutional, provided it rules

within the bounds and metes of the constitution and does not run in contrary. Its

purpose and effect has to be laid down precisely including the crimes punishable

and the extent of the offense. It has to judiciously provide the crimes that are

intolerable and incapable of reformation under life imprisonment, and justified by

execution.

The morality of the penalty can only be justified by the heinous crimes to be

punished, including on the gravity of the crime, the manifestation of the convict or

accused, and other sustainable act or evidence. The manner of execution affects

also the essence of the penalty which should be instantaneous and should not

prolong sufferings and pain, and add cruelty, humiliation or inhumanity to the

convict.

Recommendation

The community needs to be aware of the significance in determining the

morality and constitutionality of death penalty, or other may be related laws, in

order to properly sought remedy in case of arbitrariness and prejudicial

circumstances.

This study may serve as a reference to further evaluate and analyze the

imposition of death penalty in relation to necessity or just an option sought to

remedy present criminal issues. Ample facts has to be established that may

validate death penalty as being morally just including its deterrent effect or legalize

the right to preserve life of every individual without discrimination on the accused

41
or convicts, to sought a more comprehensive conclusion and help the citizens

understand both sides of demand and option for the calling of death penalty.

42