Echegaray vs.

Secretary of Justice (1999)

Summary Cases:

● Echegaray vs Secreatry of Justice (RESOLUTION)

Subject:

Finality of judgment, Court's power of control over execution of its decisions, Right to Life

Facts:

Leo Echegaray was found guilty by the RTC of Quezon City for raping his common-law spouse's
ten-year old daughter on January 25, 1996 and was given the sentence of Death Penalty. The execution
of of the judgment against Leo Echegaray was scheduled on January 4, 1999 but the Supreme Court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stay the execution of the same. The Justice Secretary
assailed the issuance of the TRO stating that once the judgment has become final and executory, it can
no longer be stayed and the Supreme Court encroached on the power of the Executive Department to
grant reprieve when it issued the said order.

Held:

Finality of Judgment

1. The rule on finality of judgment cannot divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to execute and
enforce the same judgment.

2. The finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers over the case. By the
finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Even
after the judgment has become final the court retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.

3. There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to
amend, modify or alter the same. The former continues even after the judgment has become final for the
purpose of enforcement of judgment; the latter terminates when the judgment becomes final. For after
the judgment has become final facts and circumstances may transpire which can render the execution
unjust or impossible.
| Page 1 of 3
4. Notwithstanding the order of execution and the executory nature thereof on the date set or at the
proper time, the date therefor can be postponed, even in sentences of death.

5. It is the special duty of the Supreme Court to assure that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the
minority fully hold

Court's power of control over execution of its decisions

6. The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction.

7. The process of execution of decisions are subject to supervening events which may change the
circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent
unfairness.

8. It is because of these unforseen, supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the
inherent and necessary power of control of its processes and orders to make them conformable to law
and justice.

9. The Court may not restrain the effectivity of a law enacted by Congress but it may restrain temporarily
the execution of its own decision.

10. The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure was granted by the Constitution
to the Supreme Court to enhance its independence.

11. The 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure. The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive.

12. The constitutional provision which is the source of the pardoning power of the President cannot be
interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their finality;

| Page 2 of 3
Right to Life

13. The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death convict do
not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no higher right than the right to life.

| Page 3 of 3