The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee Vs. Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot," Accused-Appellant; G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996

TOPIC: DURA LEX SED LEX

GIST: 

RATIONALE: The duty of the courts is to apply the law disregarding their feelings of sympathy or pity for an accused; dura lex sed lex.

--------

FACTS:

1. On December 29, 1989 at around 1:00 Pm, Benito Ng Suy was driving their gray Ford Fiera back home, with his daughters, Jocelyn Ng Suy and a younger one together with his two year old son.

2. An accidental head on collision occurred between the Fiera and the Tamaraw being driven by one Virgillio Abogado, with Abogado was the accused, Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot". The collision caused slight damage to the right bumper of the Tamaraw.

3. While Abogado and Benito were having a verbal confrontation, Bebot approached Benito asking the latter to leave the incident as it was only a minor incident. However, Benito said that Patricio should not interfere, which made Patricio irritated.

4. Bebot asked whether Benito is Chinese to which the latter confirmed. 

5. Benito asked Jocelyn to call a policeman but after just about a minute, Bebot stabbed Benito, rendering the victim into a critical condition which caused his death 3 weeks later due to a sepsis infection that has already circulated in his body. 

6. Patricio Amigo was initially charged with Frustrated murder, but was modified to the crime of murder to which he was convicted with a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. 

7. Accused-Appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh as a penalty and pleads for sympathy.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not the penalty imposed upon the accused "Reclusion Perpetua" be modified or reduced by virtue of Section 19 (1) of Article III of the Constitution which prohibits the imposition of death penalty.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court hold that Article III, Section 19 (1) does not change the penalty periods prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except only in so far as it prohibits the imposition of death penalty. The range of the medium and minimum penalties remain unchanged. Thus, a person originally subject to death penalty and another who committed the murder without the attendance of any modifying circumstances will now be both punishable with the same medium period of reclusion perpetua although the former is conceitedly more guilty than the latter. But that is the will of the constitution and the duty of the court is to apply the law, disregarding the sympathy or pity for an accused. Dura Lex Sed Lex.

Sc Decision: Decision is Affirmed. The penalty is still Reclusion Perpetua.

---------

Additional info:

Art. III. Section. 19, 1987 Constitution

(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.