Case Digest (G.R. No. 117472)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Leo Echegaray y Pilo, G.R. No. 117472, February 07, 1997, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Leo Echegaray charged with raping his ten-year-old daughter sometime in April 1994. The alleged offense occurred after Republic Act No. 7659 (the "Death Penalty Law") took effect on December 31, 1993.Echegaray was tried and convicted in the trial court for rape; because the case involved a capital penalty, the conviction and sentence were subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court. On June 25, 1996, the Court affirmed his conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. On July 9, 1996, Echegaray filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging, inter alia, the motives of the victim’s grandmother. On August 6, 1996, he discharged his counsel, Atty. Julian R. Vitug, and retained the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on August 23, 1996.
The Supplemental Motion asserted (among other arguments) (1) that an affidavit of desistance by the victim barred prosecution; (2) vagueness in the complaint as to the date deprived the accused of adequate defense; (3) insufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt; (4) mistaken findings regarding paternity; (5) trial-court bias and due process violations; (6) ineffective assistance of prior counsel; and (7) the facial unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7659 — both for failing the Constitution’s requirement of “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes” and as cruel and unusual punishment, particularly as applied to rape. The Court treated the case on the pending motions and resolved the constitutional and trial-rel...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May issues and evidence not raised in the pleadings or in the proceedings below be first presented in a supplemental motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court?
- Does an affidavit of desistance executed by the victim divest the trial court of jurisdiction to prosecute rape or otherwise bar the criminal action?
- Was the accused denied effective assistance of counsel such that his conviction must be set aside?
- Is Republic Act No. 7659 unconstitutional for being enacted without the “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes” required by Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution?
- Is the imposition of the death penalty for rape cruel, degrading or inhu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)