Case Summary (G.R. No. 117472)
Issues Raised in Supplemental Motion
- Pardon by offended party and mother as bar to prosecution
- Lack of definite date in complaint hindering defense preparation
- Alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Error in finding paternal relationship
- Trial court bias and denial of due process
- Ineffective assistance of prior counsel
- Unconstitutionality of RA 7659:
a. Excessive penalty for crimes not resulting in death (Art III, Sec 19(1))
b. Cruel and unusual punishment (Art III, Sec 11)
Procedural Bar to Newly Raised Arguments
Issues not alleged in the complaint or raised at trial may not be introduced for the first time in a motion for reconsideration on appeal. The only exception is lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which may be challenged at any stage.
Jurisdiction and Affidavit of Desistance
An affidavit of desistance by the minor victim is disfavored where she expressly insisted in open court on pursuing charges. Her retraction did not remove the trial court’s jurisdiction, and the prosecution properly proceeded.
Competence of Former Counsel
The former defense counsel diligently attended hearings, filed briefs and motions, and presented available defenses (denial, alibi, motive of a third party). There is no showing of gross incompetence or prejudice warranting relief.
Constitutional Framework for the Death Penalty
Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty but allows Congress to reimpose it “for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,” while converting existing death sentences to reclusion perpetua.
Legislative Enactment of RA 7659
After extensive bicameral debates in 1992–1993, Republic Act No. 7659 (effective December 31 1993) reimposed death for certain crimes classified as heinous. It amended the Revised Penal Code and special laws to provide:
• Crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death (e.g., murder, rape under specified circumstances, qualified piracy, destructive arson resulting in death, certain drug offenses);
• Crimes mandatorily punishable by death upon proof of qualifying circumstances (e.g., qualified bribery, kidnapping resulting in death or rape, arson causing death, rape producing insanity or homicide, specified drug offenses involving minors or death, offenses by certain officials).
Definition and Scope of “Heinous Crimes”
RA 7659 defines heinous crimes as those “by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity [that] are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.” This broad formulation guides courts in exercising discretionary imposition of death only when the crime’s nature or attendant facts satisfy that threshold.
Constitutional Validity of RA 7659
To satisfy Art. III, Sec. 19(1), Congress must (1) define “heinous crimes”; (2) limit death to those crimes or circumstances; and (3) act for “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.” RA 7659 fulfills these requirements through explicit definitions, enumera
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 117472)
Facts
- In April 1994, Leo Echegaray was accused of raping his ten-year-old daughter.
- Republic Act No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) was already in effect at the time of the crime.
- Trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty.
Procedural History
- June 25, 1996: Supreme Court, en banc, affirmed the conviction and death sentence on automatic review.
- July 9, 1996: Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging the grandmother’s sinister motive.
- August 6, 1996: Accused discharged his original counsel and retained the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).
- August 23, 1996: FLAG filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raising seven grounds for reversal, including constitutionality of RA 7659.
- Supreme Court consolidated issues into three categories:
• Mixed factual/legal trial matters
• Alleged incompetence of prior counsel
• Purely legal question on the constitutionality of RA 7659
Issues on Reconsideration
- Whether the purported pardon by the offended party barred prosecution.
- Alleged vagueness in the complaint’s date of offense.
- Sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Alleged error in finding a parental relationship.
- Claims of trial-court bias and denial of due process.
- Alleged ineffective assistance of first counsel.
- Constitutionality of RA 7659 under the 1987 Constitution:
• Excessiveness of death penalty for non-fatal crimes (Art. III, Sec. 19[1])
• Cruel and unusual punishment (Art. III, Sec. 11)
Jurisdictional Claim: Affidavit of Desistance
- New counsel invoked victim’s affidavit of desistance as jurisdictional bar.
- Trial record showed victim disavowed her own affidavit in open court, insisting on pursuing charges.
- Doctrine: an affidavit of desistance alone cannot outweigh positive trial testimony.
- Supreme Court held no lack of jurisdiction arose; desistance was disfavored and immaterial.
Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
- Accused’s first counsel, Atty. Julian R. V