People v.

Echegaray
GR 117472, February 7, 1997

Facts
In 1996, the SC affirmed the conviction of Leo Echegaray for the crime of rape, committed two
years prior against his ten-year old daughter. At the time of the commission of the crime, RA
7659, commonly known as the Death Penalty Law, was in effect; thus, Echegaray meted out the
supreme penalty of death. Echegaray, through his counsel, moved for reconsideration. When this
was denied, he discharged his counsel, and retained the services of the Free Legal Assistance
Group of the Philippines (FLAG). He, with the assistance of FLAG, filed a supplemental motion
for reconsideration, raising, among others, the grounds that RA 7659 is unconstitutional, and that
even if constitutional, the imposition of death penalty for the crime of rape is cruel, excessive,
and inhuman.

Issues
(1) Is RA 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, constitutional?
(2) Is the imposition of death penalty for the crime of rape cruel, excessive, and inhuman?

Ruling
(1) Yes, RA 7659 is constitutional. The Congress believed that the enactment of RA 7659 is
within its power to impose death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes
(Article III, Section 19[1], the Constitution). The vote was 123 affirmative votes against 26
negative votes and 2 abstentions in the HoR, and 17 affirmative votes against four negative votes
and one abstention in the Senate, which confirm the position of the Congress to impose death
penalty. The only issue left was the determination of heinous crimes, which stand as compelling
reason to impose death penalty. The SC noted: Heinous crime is an act or series of acts which,
by the flagrantly violent manner in which the same was committed or by reason of its inherent
viciousness, shows a patent disregard and mockery of the law, public peace and order, or public
morals. RA 7659 listed capital crimes warranting the mandatory penalty of death. These crimes
(e.g. murder, rape, and kidnapping) are heinous, because in their commission, the victim is
utterly dehumanized as to completely disrupt the normal course of his growth as a human being.
Other crimes in the list (e.g. qualified bribery, plunder, and sale of illegal drugs) are heinous,
because of their impact to the struggling developmental conditions in the country.
(2) No, death penalty is not a cruel, excessive, and inhuman punishment for the crime of rape.
The SC rejected Echegarays argument that death penalty should only be imposed upon convicts
of murder, in line with the biblical notion an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It emphasized
that forfeiture of life simply because life was taken never was a defining essence of death
penalty; rather, death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes, including rape. The SC noted that
rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person
has a right. Further, the SC ruled that death penalty is not cruel per se, in this wise: punishments
are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not
cruel. Thus, the SC denied the supplemental motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.