I.

PROFILE

TITLE/PARTIES: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. EDGARDO Z.

ANTONIO, appellant.
G.R. No. 180920
DATE: March 27, 2008
PONENTE: CORONA, J:

II. SUMMARY/DIGEST

Appellant is a brother of AAA's grandfather and she fondly called him "Kuya Eddie". On
November 26, 2002, AAA was celebrating her sixth birthday and playing with her friends when
appellant arrived at around 2:00 p.m. Appellant called AAA and asked her to accompany him to
a nearby fishpond to gather shells. One of AAA's friends told him there were no shells in the
fishpond but appellant nevertheless prevailed upon her to go with him. On arriving at the
fishpond, appellant told AAA to lie down. He forcibly removed her panty, took off his shorts,
mounted her and had carnal knowledge of her. Appellant denied the accusation. He claimed that,
on the day of the alleged incident, he did his usual chore of driving a tricycle until around noon
when he went to the house of a niece in Brgy. Ipil, Dipaculao, Aurora. There, he drank gin with
some friends until around 3:30 in the afternoon. Thereafter, he cleaned the tricycle and returned
it to its operator-owner at around 6:00 p.m. He theorized that he was implicated in the crime
because AAA's parents were mad at him as he had refused to lend them money and to sell them
his cellular phone at a low price.
After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the trial court sustained the positive
identification and straightforward testimony of AAA over appellant's denial and alibi. The trial
court finds accused Edgardo Z. Antonio guilty of the crime rape and subjected to death penalty.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic appeal but was remanded to the Court
of Appeals in accordance with People v. Mateo. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
ruling with modification.

The Supreme Court ruled that both the trial and appellate courts found that appellant's
guilt for the crime of qualified rape which the death penalty could have been imposed had not
Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited it. However, the Court of Appeals erred in lowering the civil
indemnity from P75,000 to P50,000 purportedly in accordance with the same law. The law only
prohibited the imposition of the death penalty but did not affect the corresponding pecuniary or
civil liabilities.

III. THEORIES

• Natural Law
• Law and Society Theory
• Legal Positivism
• Feminist Jurisprudence
•
 IV. DECONSTRUCTION PROPER

Here, is a scenario wherein the offender was sentenced with death penalty, however,
pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, it reduced the imposed penalty from death to reclution perpetua
which is the best example of good law in line with natural law theory that deals with what is
good and what is not. Thus, any law that is good is moral, and any moral law is good. This new
law preserves the “sanctity of life”, the belief that, because people are made in God’s image
(Genesis 1:26–27), human life has an inherently sacred attribute that should be protected and
respected at all times. In connection with law and society theory, that law mirroring the
society is what makes law efficient and effective in functioning to maintain social order, and in
order to do so, the law should balance between what social norms are prevailing in the present
time, base the law or enactment from it, and implement punishments that are considered just. In
doing so, the citizens will view it as their own products, and a reflection of their way of life.
Being a Catholic country, we value the sanctity of life, which reflects the intent of the framers in
passing R.A. No. 9346, it balances out the norms, beliefs and culture in present time and at the
same time implement punishment that are considered fair and just.

Nevertheless, R.A. No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of death penalty shows that
the society had already accepted the present case as the norm. In legal positivism which
highlights the established nature of law—that it is socially constructed, synonymous with
positive norms, that is, norms made by the legislator or considered as common law or case law.
In line with this, R.A. No. 9346 reducing the appellant’s punishment from death penalty to
reclusion perpetua clearly shows that such enactment was based on the law enforcement and
legal effectiveness. Appellant still suffer for forty years of imprisonment without eligibility of
parole and to pay liability for civil idemnity.

Feminist jurisprudence sees the workings of law as thoroughly permeated by political and
moral judgments about the worth of women and how women should be treated. The descriptive
component of a substantive feminist view will tell us that women are currently disadvantaged
with respect to rights and respect, compared with men. Here, had not for the imposition of R.A.
No. 9346, appellant would have been sentenced to death penalty as punishment for his crime of
qualified rape. Consequently, AAA’s fear of becoming Antonio’s victim, abused and
disrespected of her rights while being a minor and a young woman, still subsist.

V. CONCLUSION

In the Realist point of view, Death penalty or Capital punishment gives two
distinct forms of suffering. First, is psychological anguish of the person awaiting
for the prosecution; and second, there is phsycical suffering which may be
involved in the execution itself. If we reflect clearly on this, we will conclude that
the death penalty involves cruelty of a kind which makes it unacceptable.