Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22367)
Facts:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Angel Mojica, G.R. No. L-18755, a petition for certiorari was filed by the petitioners on August 31, 1961. The underlying events began on April 29, 1961, when the Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty imposed on Marcial Ama y Perez by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. 422-R. Following this affirmation, the execution of Ama was scheduled for August 4, 1961. However, on August 3, 1961, a motion filed by Ama's counsel, Delfin L. Gonzalez, prompted the respondent Judge to issue an order that suspended the execution and rescheduled it for September 4, 1961. In response to this decision, on August 11, 1961, the Acting Director of Prisons sought reconsideration of the judge’s order, arguing that under the Constitution, only the President of the Philippines holds the power to suspend such executions. This motion was denied by the respondent judge on August 18, 1961, dCase Digest (G.R. No. L-22367)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The petitioner for certiorari challenged the procedures relating to the execution of Marcial Ama y Perez, who had been sentenced to death by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. 422-R.
- The decision in People vs. Marcial Ama y Perez (G.R. No. L-14783) was affirmed on review on April 29, 1961.
- Execution Schedule and Orders
- On July 25, 1961, the court fixed the execution of Ama for Friday, August 4, 1961, following the return of the record from the appeal.
- On August 3, 1961, acting on a motion by counsel de oficio, Delfin L. Gonzalez, the respondent Judge issued an order suspending the execution scheduled for August 4, 1961, and directed the Acting Director of Prisons to reschedule the execution for September 4, 1961.
- Constitutional Issue and Motion for Reconsideration
- On August 11, 1961, the petitioner, in the capacity of Acting Director of Prisons, filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the judge’s action on the ground that the authority to suspend an execution under the Constitution of the Philippines resides solely with the President.
- Despite the petitioner’s motion, the respondent judge denied the motion on August 18, 1961, notwithstanding knowledge that the President had granted a reprieve for Ama that was set to end on September 3, 1961.
- Final Outcome of the Presidential Reprieve
- The reprieve issued by the President was effective until September 3, 1961.
- With the reprieve set to expire the following day, the procedural and legal framework permitted the execution to be carried out in accordance with the order issued on August 3, 1961, thus rendering the controversy raised in the petition moot.
Issues:
- Whether the petition for certiorari is maintainable on the ground that the respondent judge exceeded his constitutional authority by suspending the execution, an act reserved exclusively to the President.
- Whether rescheduling the execution to September 4, 1961, despite a Presidential reprieve expiring on September 3, 1961, affects the propriety of the judge’s order.
- Whether the lapse of the Presidential reprieve, which ended on September 3, 1961, renders the petition moot since the execution could then proceed in accordance with the scheduled order.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)