Case Summary (G.R. No. 181377)
Relevant Facts
A seven‑year‑old girl, identified as Angel Alquiza, was found dead with wounds indicating sexual violence and fatal injuries. Several accused were charged with rape with homicide. After trial, the RTC found Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua (with civil liabilities). The City Prosecutor moved for reconsideration seeking imposition of the death penalty. The trial judge denied the motion on grounds of lack of jurisdiction because notices of appeal had been perfected.
Procedural Posture
The prosecutor filed a special civil action in the Supreme Court (certiorari) contending the trial judge acted in grave abuse of discretion and exceeded jurisdiction by imposing reclusion perpetua rather than the death penalty mandated by RA 7659. The Supreme Court limited its review to the legal question concerning the appropriate penalty and did not question the trial court’s factual finding of guilt at that stage.
Governing Statutory Provision
Section 11 of RA No. 7659 amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The operative provision, as recited by the Court, states that “when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.” The statute distinguishes ordinary rape punishable by reclusion perpetua from aggravated forms where reclusion perpetua to death or death alone are prescribed; rape with homicide falls in the category mandating death.
Holding
The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, by imposing reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for the imposition of the penalty of death in accordance with the law and subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning — No Judicial Discretion to Impose Lesser Penalty
The Court reasoned that RA 7659’s language is plain and peremptory: where rape results in homicide “the penalty shall be death.” That statutory prescription leaves no room for judicial discretion to substitute reclusion perpetua. The Court emphasized the duty of judges to apply the law as written regardless of their personal, religious, or moral objections, citing prior authority to underscore that private opinions must not determine legal outcomes when the statute is clear.
Duty to Apply Law Despite Personal Beliefs
The opinion stresses that arguments about the wisdom, morality, or efficacy of the death penalty are matters for the Legislature and the Chief Executive, not for judicial determination when the law explicitly prescribes the penalty. The judiciary’s function is to interpret and apply the law; consequently, a judge who knowingly refuses to apply a statutorily mandated penalty commits grave abuse of discretion.
Jurisdictional Objection and the Void Judgment Doctrine (Concurring: Narvasa, C.J.)
Chief Justice Narvasa, in separate concurrence, addressed the trial judge’s contention that the court had lost jurisdiction once appeals were perfected. He explained that the portion of the judgment imposing an unauthorized penalty is void because it was rendered without jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion. A void judgment cannot support an effective appeal; therefore the trial court had not lawfully lost jurisdiction for the purpose of correcting the void portion, and remand for correction was appropriate.
Procedural Considerations and Safeguards (Concurring: Regalado, J.)
Justice Regalado concurred and elaborated on procedure, rejecting consolidation of the present special civil action with the pending criminal appeal. He explained that the certiorari action is a proper original remedy to correct the erroneous imposition of an unauthorized penalty before appellate review on the merits proceeds. He also underscored the protective role of automatic review in capital cases — a safeguard that protects both State and accused and operates even if an appeal is withdrawn or the condemned escapes.
Dissenting/
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 181377)
Facts of the Crime
- On August 2, 1994, a cadaver later identified as Angel Alquiza was found floating along Del Pan St., near the corner of Lavesares St., Binondo, Manila, wrapped in a sack and a yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord; both feet and the left hand protruded from the covering.
- When untied and removed from its cover, the body was clad only in a light colored duster, without panties, and exhibited gaping wounds on the left side of the face, the left chin, left ear, lacerations on the genitalia, and a bashed-in head.
- Sworn statements of witnesses, booking sheets, arrest reports, and the necropsy report were used in the investigation and charging.
Criminal Informations and Accused
- Criminal Case No. 94-138071 (Information dated August 8, 1994): Accused Abundio Lagunday, a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey (of no fixed address), and Henry Lagarto y Petilla (of 288 Area H. Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila) were charged with Rape with Homicide for acts alleged to have occurred on or about August 2, 1994, in Manila. The Information alleged conspiracy and confederation with one alias 'LANDO' and other persons, and charged that Angel Alquiza, a seven (7) year old minor, was taken to a warehouse, her mouth covered, vagina slashed, head hit with a thick piece of wood and neck stabbed, and that fatal injuries were caused which directly caused her death immediately thereafter.
- Criminal Case No. 94-138138 (Information dated August 11, 1994): Ernesto Cordero y Maristela, a.k.a. 'Booster' (of 1198 Sunflower St., Tondo), Rolando Manlangit y Mamerta, a.k.a. 'Lando' (of 1274 Kagitingan St., Tondo), Richard Baltazar y Alino, a.k.a. 'Curimao' (also of 1274 Kagitingan St.), and Catalino Yaon y Aberin, a.k.a. 'Joel' (of 1282 Lualhati St., Tondo) were similarly charged, alleged to have conspired and confederated with Abundio Lagunday and Henry Lagarto, taking the victim in a pedicab, forcibly bringing her to a nearby warehouse and committing the same acts of violence and sexual assault allegedly causing fatal injuries.
Consolidation and Trial
- The two criminal cases were consolidated to Branch 47 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, presided over by Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion (respondent Judge).
- All accused except Abundio Lagunday (who was later dropped from the Information as he was already dead, allegedly shot by police escorts after attempting to fire a gun on August 12, 1994) pleaded "Not Guilty."
- After trial and presentation of prosecution and defense evidence, the trial court rendered a decision on January 31, 1995 finding Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide and sentencing both to the "penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law."
Dispositive Portion of the Trial Court Decision
- The trial court dismissed the information against Rolando Manlangit for lack of evidence.
- It found Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide and sentenced both to reclusion perpetua with accessories.
- It ordered them to indemnify jointly and severally the private complainant P100,000 for the death of Angel Alquiza, P500,000 for moral damages, and P52,000 for actual damages (funeral/wake expenses), and to pay costs of the suits.
Motion for Reconsideration and Trial Court's Ruling Thereon
- On February 8, 1995, the City Prosecutor of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration requesting modification of the Decision to impose the penalty of death instead of reclusion perpetua upon respondents Lagarto and Cordero.
- On February 10, 1995, respondent Judge issued an Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the accused had complied with legal requirements for the perfection of an appeal, and therefore the Trial Court could no longer take cognizance of the Motion.
- The February 10, 1995 Order reiterated the Court's prior order regarding the Notices of Appeal filed by both accused and directed the Clerk to transmit the complete records together with the notices of appeal to the Supreme Court in accordance with Sec. 8, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Nature of the Present Petition and Issue Presented
- The People's petition to the Supreme Court challenges only the trial judge's refusal/ failure to impose the death penalty despite having found respondents guilty of Rape with Homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659.
- The sole legal issue before the Court: After finding that an accused in a criminal case committed homicide on the occasion of Rape (i.e., Rape with Homicide), does the judge have any discretion to impose either Reclusion Perpetua or Death, or is the penalty of Death mandatory under R.A. No. 7659?
Applicable Law — R.A. No. 7659 (Section 11), Quoted Provision
- Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The provision as reproduced in the record includes:
- Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge under certain circumstances enumerated.
- "The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua."
- "Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death."
- "When by reason