PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Leo Echegaray was charged and convicted for the crime of raping his
ten-year old daughter. The crime having been committed sometime in April, 1994, during which
time Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, commonly known as the Death Penalty Law, was already in
effect, accused-appellant was inevitably meted out the supreme penalty of death. The accused-
appellant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
In appealing the conviction, it raised the constitutionality of the Death Penalty Law as being
severe and excessive, cruel and unusual in violation of the constitution.
R.A. No. 7659, reimposing the death penalty is unconstitutional per se:
a. For crimes where no death results from the offense, the death penalty is a severe
and excessive penalty in violation of Article III, Sec. 19 ( I ) of the 1987 Constitution.
b. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Article III, Sec.
11 of the 1987 Constitution."
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Death Penalty is unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment
HELD:
1. Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution simply states that congress, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, may re-impose the death penalty. Nothing
in the said provision imposes a requirement that for a death penalty bill to be valid, a
positive manifestation in the form of a higher incidence of crime should first be perceived
and statistically proven following the suspension of the death penalty. Neither does the
said provision require that the death penalty be resorted to as a last recourse when all other
criminal reforms have failed to abate criminality in society.
2. The right of a person is not only to live but to live a quality life, and this means that the
rest of society is obligated to respect his or her individual personality, the integrity and the
sanctity of his or her own physical body, and the value he or she puts in his or her own
spiritual, psychological, material and social preferences and needs.
*The Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration were
DENIED for LACK OF MERIT.
Full case: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/117472.htm