Heinous Crimes Act - R.A. No.

7659
AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof, states "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"; WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society; WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and order in the country; WHEREAS, the Congress, in the interest of justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes; Now, therefore, Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to foster and ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to adopt such measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society; Sec. 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine

not to exceed 100,000 pesos. "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court. "Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos." Sec. 3. Section Three, Chapter One, Title One of Book Two of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section Three. - Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in the Philippine waters "Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in the Philippine waters. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or in the Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or passengers. The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in the Philippine waters. "Art. 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances: "1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; "2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves or; "3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape." Sec. 4. There shall be incorporated after Article 211 of the same Code a new article to read as follows: "Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in

consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted. "If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death." Sec. 5. The penalty of death for parricide under Article 246 of the same Code is hereby restored, so that it shall read as follows: "Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate of illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death." Sec. 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: "1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. "2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise. "3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. "4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. "5. With evident premeditation. "6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse." Sec. 7. Article 255 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Art. 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age. "If any crime penalized in this Article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal." Sec. 8. Article 267 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: "1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. "2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. "3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made. "4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer. "The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. "When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed." Sec. 9. Article 294 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: "1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or

when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. "2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been inflicted. "3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted. "4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. "5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases." Sec. 10. Article 320 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn: "1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions. "2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce trade workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not. "3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.

"4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities. "5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance. "Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law. "The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn: "1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government. "2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials. "If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed." Sec. 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: "1. By using force or intimidation; "2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and "3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. "The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. "Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. "When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become

insane, the penalty shall be death. "When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. "The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: "1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim. "2. when the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. "3. when the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. "4. when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old. "5. when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. "6. when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency. "7. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation."

Sec. 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such

offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State." Sec. 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, of Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any prohibited drug. "Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. "Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Prohibited Drug Users. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any form or where such prohibited drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, Paragraph 1 of this Act are found. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed in every case where a prohibited drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place. "Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20

of this Act to the contrary. "Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any prohibited drug. "Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof. "Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are Sources of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall plant, cultivate or culture any medium Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or any other plant which is or may hereafter be classified as dangerous drug or from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived. "The land or portions hereof, and/or greenhouses on which any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he did not know such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part. "If the land involved in is part of the public domain, the maximum of the penalties herein provided shall be imposed upon the offender." Sec. 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring any regulated drug in the Philippines. "Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any regulated drug.

"Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed." Sec. 15. There shall be incorporated after Section 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, a new section to read as follows: "Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for regulated drug users. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any regulated drugs is used in any form, or where such regulated drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in every case where a regulated drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place. "Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary." Sec. 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act No. 6425, is amended to read as follows: "Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof. Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities: 1. 40 grams or more of opium; 2. 40 grams or more of morphine; 3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride; 4. 40 grams or more of heroin; 5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana; 6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; 7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or 8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose. "Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity. "Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration, delivery, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of all the proceeds of the crime including but not limited to money and other obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay. Dangerous drugs and plant sources of such drugs as well as the proceeds or instruments of the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without delay. "Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or misapplies or

fails to account for seized or confiscated dangerous drugs or plant-sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds or instruments of the crime as are herein defined shall after conviction be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos." Sec. 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new section to read as follows: "Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any person charged under any provision of this Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea bargaining." Sec. 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and Employees and Officers and Members of Police Agencies and the Armed Forces, 'Planting' of Evidence. The maximum penalties provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of any of the said offenses are government officials, employees or officers, including members of police agencies and the armed forces. "Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided." Sec. 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, known as the AntiCarnapping Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle

is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." Sec. 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty years and one day to forty years. "Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, it shall be that of the principal penalty. "Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension, and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when the suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Arresto mayor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months. Arresto menor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days. Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine." Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of the Death Penalty Cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. "In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records

shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter." Sec. 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: "1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. "1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances. "The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. "An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. "2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. "3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, of from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. "4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the

execution of the act or their cooperation therein. "5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: "(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; "(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime or which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and "(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. "Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. "For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener." Sec. 24. Article 81 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. - The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. "If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthesized at the moment of the execution. "As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the method of carrying out the sentence shall be changed to gas poisoning.

"The death sentence shall be carried out not later than one (1) year after the judgment has become final." Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40. "In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power." Sec. 26. All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any part of the provision of this Act shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect. Sec. 28. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. The publication shall not be later than seven (7) days after the approval hereof. Approved: December 13, 1993
0

Heinous crimes
The etymological root of the word "heinous" can be traced to the Early Spartans' word, "haineus", meaning, hateful and abominable, which, in turn, was from the Greek prefix "haton", denoting acts so hatefully or shockingly evil. The definition or description of heinous crimes is found in the second whereas clause of the preamble of Republic Act No. 7659, which reads: "x x x the crimes punishable by

death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." This definition or description, according to the Supreme Court, is a sufficient criterion of what is to be considered a heinous crime. This criterion is deliberately undetailed as to the circumstances of the victim, the accused, place, time, the manner of commission of crime, its proximate consequences and effects on the victim as well as on society, to afford the sentencing authority sufficient leeway to exercise his discretion in imposing the appropriate penalty in cases where Republic Act No. 7659 imposes not a mandatory penalty of death but the more flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.[1] See also Death penalty.
Contents
[hide]

1 Types of crimes under R.A. No. 7659

o o

1.1 Crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua to death 1.2 Heinous crimes per se 2.1 In the House of Representatives 2.2 Debate in the Senate 2.3 Bicameral Conference Committee

2 Legislative history or R.A. 7659

o o o

3 Prohibition on the imposition of death penalty 4 References

Types of crimes under R.A. No. 7659

There were two types of crimes under R.A. No. 7659: (1) crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua to death; and (2) crimes penalized by mandatory capital punishment upon the attendance of certain specified qualifying circumstances.[2]

Crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua to death

All the crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua to death are not capital crimes per se, the uniform penalty for all of them being not mandatory death but the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. In other words, it is premature to demand

for a specification of the heinous elements in each of foregoing crimes because they are not anyway mandatorily penalized with death. The elements that call for the imposition of the supreme penalty of death in these crimes, would only be relevant when the trial court, given the prerogative to impose reclusion perpetua, instead actually imposes the death penalty because it has, in appreciating the evidence proffered before it, found the attendance of certain circumstances in the manner by which the crime was committed, or in the person of the accused on his own or in relation to the victim, or in any other matter of significance to the commission of the crime or its effects on the victim or on society, which circumstances characterize the criminal acts as grievous, odious, or hateful, or inherently or manifestly wicked, vicious, atrocious or perverse as to be repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. The following crimes are penalized by reclusion perpetua to death under R.A. No. 7659:[3]

Treason (Sec. 2) Qualified piracy (Sec. 3) Parricide (Sec. 5) Murder (Sec. 6) Infanticide (Sec. 7) Kidnapping and serious illegal detention if attended by any of the following four circumstances: (a) the victim was detained for more than three days; (b) it was committed simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim or threats to kill him were made; and (d) if the victim is a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer (Sec. 8) Robbery with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation (Sec. 9) Destructive arson if what is burned is (a) one or more buildings or edifice; (b) a building where people usually gather; (c) a train, ship or airplane for public use; (d) a building or factory in the service of public utilities; (e) a building for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence Or a crime; (f) an arsenal, fireworks factory, or government museum; and (g) a storehouse or factory of explosive materials located in an inhabited place; or regardless of what is burned, if the arson is perpetrated by two or more persons (Sec. 10)

Rape attended by any of the following circumstances: (a) the rape is committed with a deadly weapon; (b) the rape is committed by two or more persons; and (c) the rape is attempted or frustrated and committed with homicide (Sec. 11) Plunder involving at least P50 million (Sec. 12) Importation of prohibited drugs (Sec. 13) Sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs (id.) Maintenance of den, dive or resort for users of prohibited drugs (id.) Manufacture of prohibited drugs (id.) Possession or use of prohibited drugs in certain specified amounts (id.) Cultivation of plants which are sources of prohibited drugs (id.) Importation of regulated drugs (Sec. 14) Manufacture of regulated drugs (id.) Sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation, and distribution of regulated drugs (id.) Maintenance of den, dive, or resort for users of regulated drugs (Sec. 15) Possession or use of regulated drugs in specified amounts (Sec. 16) Misappropriation, misapplication or failure to account dangerous drugs confiscated by the arresting officer (Sec. 17) Planting evidence of dangerous drugs in person or immediate vicinity of another to implicate the latter (Sec. 19) Carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped (Sec. 20).

Heinous crimes per se

On the other hand, the mandatory penalty of death is imposed in the following crimes under R.A. No. 7659:[4]

Qualified bribery. "If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted. If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death." (Sec. 4)

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom resulting in the death of the victim or the victim is raped, tortured or subjected to dehumanizing acts. "The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subject to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty [of death] shall be imposed." (Sec. 8) Destructive arson resulting in death. "If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed." (Sec. 10) Rape with the victim becoming insane, rape with homicide and qualified. "When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent or the victim. 2. when the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. 3. when the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. 4. when the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old 5. when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. 6. when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency. 7. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation." (Sec. 11 )

Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs where the victim is a minor or the victim dies. "Notwithstanding the

provision of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of victim thereof, the maximum penalty [of death] herein provided shall be imposed." (Sec. 13)

Maintenance of den, dive, or resort for users of prohibited drugs where the victim is a minor or the victim dies. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum of the penalty [of death] shall be imposed in every case where a prohibited drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.

Should a prohibited drug be the proximate case of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary." (Sec. 13)

Sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of regulated drugs where the victim is a minor or the victim dies. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty [of death] herein provided shall be imposed." (Sec. 14) Maintenance of den, dive, or resort for users of regulated drugs where the victim is a minor or the victim dies. "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum penalty [of death] herein provided shall be imposed in every case where a regulated drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.

Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause of death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary." (Sec. 15)

Drug offenses if convicted are government officials, employees or officers including members of police agencies and armed forces. "The maximum penalties [of death] provided for in Section 3, 4 (1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 14(1), 15A (1), 16, and 19 of Article III [of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972] shall be imposed, if those found guilty or any of the same offenses are government officials, employees or officers including members of police agencies and the armed forces." (Sec. 19) Planting of dangerous drugs as evidence in drug offenses with the mandatory death penalty if convicted are government officials, employees or officers. "Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of 'planting' any dangerous drugs punished in Section s 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15, and 16 of Article III (of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) in the person or in the immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided." (Sec. 19) In all the crimes in RA. No. 7659 in their qualified form. "When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum [of death] regardless of mitigating circumstances. The maximum penalty [of death] shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime." (Sec. 23)

The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes that are, by their very nature, despicable, either because life was callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and utterly dehumanized as to completely disrupt the normal course of his or her growth as a human being. 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. Seen in this light, the capital crimes of kidnapping

and serious illegal detention for ransom resulting in the death of the victim or the victim is raped, tortured, or subjected to dehumanizing acts; destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving minors or resulting in the death of the victim in the case of other crimes; as well as murder, rape, parricide, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is detained for more than three days or serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim or threats to kill him were made or the victim is a minor, robbery with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation, destructive arson, and carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped, which are penalized by reclusion perpetua to death, are clearly heinous by their very nature.[5] There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population, the Philippine Government must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and psyche of the populace. Terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society.[6]

Legislative history or R.A. 7659

Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution simply states that Congress, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, may reimpose 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. It is immaterial and irrelevant that R.A. No. 7659 cites that there has been an "alarming upsurge of such crimes", for the same was never intended by said law to be the yardstick to determine the existence of compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Fittingly, thus, what R.A. No. 7659 states is that "the Congress, in the interest of justice, public order and rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes."[7]

In the House of Representatives

The House of Representatives had, in the Eight Congress, earlier approved on third reading House Bill No. 295 on the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. The House was in effect rebuffed by the Senate when the Senate killed House Bill No. 295 along with other bills coming from the House. House Bill No. 295 was resurrected during the Ninth Congress in the form of House Bill No. 62 which was introduced by twenty one (21) Members of the House of Representatives on 27 October 1992. House Bill No. 62 was a merger of House Bill Nos. 125, 187, 411, 764, 506, 781, 955, 1565, 1586, 2206, 3238, 3576 and 3632 authored by various Members of the Lower House.[8] In his Sponsorship Speech, Representative Manuel R. Sanchez of Rizal ably essayed the constitutional vesting in Congress of the power to re-impose the death penalty for compelling reasons invoking heinous crimes as well as the nature of this constitutional pre-requisite to the exercise of such power.[9] "Mr. Speaker, in Article III, Section 19(1) of Constitution reads, a I quote: 'Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress shall thereafter provide for it . . .'

The phrase 'unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress shall thereafter provide for it was introduced as an amendment by then Comm. Christian Monsod. The import of this amendment is unmistakable. By this amendment, the death penalty was not completely abolished by the 1987 Constitution. Rather, it merely suspended the death penalty and gave Congress the discretion to review it at the propitious time. Arguing for the inclusion of said amendment in the fine provision, Comm. Ricardo Romulo said, and I quote: "'The people should have the final say on the subject, because, at some future time, the people might want to restore death penalty through initiative and referendum. Commissioner Monsod further argued, and I quote: We cannot presume to have the wisdom of the ages. Therefore, it is entirely possible in the future that circumstances may arise which we should not preclude today. xxx xxx xxx I believe that [there] are enough compelling reasons that merit the reimposition of the capital punishment. The violent manner and the viciousness in which crimes are now committed with alarming regularity, show very clearly a patent disregard of the law and a mockery of public peace and order. In the public gallery section today are the relatives of the victims of heinous crimes the Hultmans, the Maguans, the Vizcondes, the Castanoses, and many more, and they are all crying for justice. We ought to listen to them because their lives, their hopes, their dreams, their future have fallen asunder by the cruel and vicious criminality of a few who put their selfish interest above that of society.

Heinous crime is an act or series of acts which, by the flagrantly violent manner in which the same was committed or by the reason of its inherent viciousness, shows a patent disregard and mockery of the law, public peace and order, or public morals. It is an offense whose essential and inherent viciousness and atrocity are repugnant and outrageous to a civilized society and hence, shock the moral self of a people. Of late, we are witness to such kind of barbaric crimes. The Vizconde massacre that took the lives of a mother and her two lovely daughters, will stand in the people's memory for many long years as the epitome of viciousness and atrocity that are repugnant to civilized society. The senseless murder of Eldon Maguan, and up-and-coming young business executive, was and still is an outrage that shocks the moral self of our people. The mind-boggling death of Maureen Hultmann, a comely 16 year-old high school student who dreamt of becoming a commercial model someday, at the hands of a crazed man was so repulsive, so brutal that it offends the sensibilities of Christians and non-Christians alike The cold-blooded double murder of Cochise Bernabe and Beebom Castanos, the lovely and promising couple from the University of the Philippines, is eternally lodged in the recesses of our minds and still makes our stomach turn in utter disgust. xxx xxx xxx The seriousness of the situation is such that if no radical action is taken by this body in restoring death penalty as a positive response to the overwhelming clamor of the people, then, as Professor Esteban Bautista of the Philippine Law Center said, and I quote: 'When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they deserve, there are sown the seeds of anarchy of self-help, of vigilante justice and lynch law.

The people will take the law upon their hands and exact vengeance in the nature of personal vendetta.' It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here and support House Bill No. 62. As duly elected Representatives of our people, collectively, we ought to listen to our constituents and heed their plea a plea for life, liberty and pursuit of their happiness under a regime of justice and democracy, and without threat that their loves ones will be kidnapped, raped or butchered. But if such a misfortune befalls them, there is the law they could rely on for justice. A law that will exact retribution for the victims. A law that will deter future animalistic behavior of the criminal who take their selfish interest over and above that of society. A law that will deal a deathblow upon all heinous crimes. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleagues, for the preservation of all that we hold dear and sacred, let us restore the death penalty." A studious comparison of the legislative proceedings in the Senate and in the House of Representatives reveals that, while both Chambers were not wanting of oppositors to the death penalty, the Lower House seemed less quarrelsome about the form of the death penalty bill as a special law specifying certain heinous crimes without regard to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and more unified in the perception of what crimes are heinous and that the fact of their very heinousness involves the compulsion and the imperative to suppress, if not completely eradicate, their occurrence. Representative Miguel L. Romero of Negros Oriental noted that: "All these crimes have a common denominator which qualifies them to the level of heinous crimes. A heinous crime is one which, by reason of its inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity or perversity, is repugnant and outrageous to the common standards of decency and morality in a just and civilized society." He then proceeded to provide the details of the nature of the heinous crimes enumerated in House Bill No. 62:[10]

The crime of treason is defined as a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it. By the 'allegiance' is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which individuals owe to the government under which they live or to their sovereign in return for the protection which they receive. In kidnapping, the though alone of one's loved one being held against his or her own will in some unidentified house by a group of scoundrels who are strangers is enough terrify and send shivers of fear through the spine of any person, even scoundrels themselves. In robbery accompanied by rape, intentional mutilation or arson, what is being punished by death is the fact that the perpetrator, at the time of the commission of the crime, thinks nothing of the other crime he commits and sees it merely as a form of self-amusement. When a homicide is committed by reason of the robbery, the culprits are perceived as willing to take human life in exchange for money or other personal property. In the crime of rape, not only do we speak of the pain and agony of the parents over the personal shock and suffering of their child but the stigma of the traumatic and degrading incident which has shattered the victim's life and permanently destroyed her reputation, not to mention the ordeal of having to undergo the shameful experience of police interrogation and court hearings. Piracy, which is merely a higher form of robbery, is punished for the universal hostility of the perpetrators against their victims who are passengers and complement of the vessel, and because of the fact that, in the high seas, no one may be expected to be able to come to the rescue of the helpless victims. For the same reason, the crime of air piracy is punished due to the evil motive of the hijackers in making unreasonable demands upon the sovereignty of an entire nation or nations, coupled with the attendant circumstance of subjecting the passengers to terrorism.

The debate on House Bill No. 62 lasted from 27 October 1992 to 11 February 1993. On 11 February 1993, the Members of the House of

Representatives overwhelmingly approved the death penalty bill on second reading. On 23 February 1993, the Members of the House of Representatives cast their vote on House Bill No. 62 when it was up for consideration on third reading. The results were 123 votes in favor, 26 votes against, and 2 abstentions.[11]

Debate in the Senate

The Senate never doubted its power as vested in it by the constitution, to enact legislation re-imposing the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the Senate proceeded to a two-step process consisting of: first, the decision, as a matter of policy, to re-impose the death penalty or not; and second, the vote to pass on the third reading the bill re-imposing the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.[12] On 15 February 1993, after a fierce and fiery exchange of arguments for and against capital punishment, the Members of the Senate voted on the policy issue of death penalty. With seventeen (17) affirmative votes and seven (7) negative votes and no abstention, the Chair declared that the Senate has voted to re-incorporate death as a penalty in the scale of penalties as provided in the Revised Penal Code. A nine-person committee was subsequently created to draft the compromise bill pursuant to said vote. The mandate of the committee was to retain the death penalty, while the main debate in the committee would be the determination of the crimes to be considered heinous.[13] On 17 March 1993, Senator Arturo Tolentino, Chairman of the Special Committee on the Death Penalty, delivered his Sponsorship Speech. He began with an explanation as to why the Senate Bill No. 891 re-imposes the death penalty by amending the Revised Penal Code and other special penal laws and includes provisions that do not define or punish crimes but serve purposes allied to the reimposition of the death penalty.[14] In response to a query by Senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as to whether or not it would have been better if the Senate were to enact a special law which merely defined and imposed the death penalty for heinous crimes, Senator Tolentino explicated, thus:[15]

"x x x [T]hat may be a way presenting the bill. But we must bear in mind that the death penalty is imposed in the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, when the Constitution abolished the death penalty, it actually was amending the Revised Penal Code to such an extent that the Constitution provides that where the death penalty has already been imposed but not yet carried out, then the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua, that is the penalty in the Revised Penal Code. So we thought that it would be best to just amend the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, restoring the death penalty for some crimes that may be considered as heinous. That is why the bill is in this form amending the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Of course, if some people want to present a special bill . . . the whole trouble is, when a special bill is presented and we want to punish in the special bill the case of murder, for instance, we will have to reproduce the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on murder in order to define the crime for which the death penalty shall be imposed. Or if we want to impose the death penalty in the case of kidnapping which is punished in the Revised Penal Code, we will do the same -- merely reproduce. Why will we do that? So we just followed the simpler method of keeping the definition of the crime as the same and merely adding some aggravating circumstances and reimposing the death penalty in these offenses originally punished in the Revised Penal Code." From 17 March 1993, when the death penalty bill was presented for discussion until 16 August 1993, the Members of the Senate debated on its provisions. The stiffest opposition thereto was bannered by Senator Lina who kept prodding the sponsors of the bill to state the compelling reason for each and every crime for which the supreme penalty of death was sought. Zeroing in on the statement in the preamble of the death penalty bill that the same is warranted in the face of "the alarming upsurge of [heinous] crimes", Senator Lina demanded for solid statistics showing that in the case of each and every crime in the death penalty bill, there was a significantly higher incidence of each crime after the suspension of the death penalty on 2 February 1987 when the 1987 Constitutionwas ratified by the majority of the Filipino people, than before such ratification. Inasmuch as the re-impositionists could not satisfy the abolitionists with sufficient statistical data for the latter to accept

the alarming upsurge of heinous crimes as a compelling reason justifying the reimposition of the death penalty, Senator Lina concluded that there were, in fact, no compelling reasons therefor. In the alternative, Senator Lina argued that the compelling reason required by the constitution was that "the State has done everything in its command so that it can be justified to use an inhuman punishment called death penalty". The problem, Senator Lina emphasized, was that even the re-impositionists admit that there were still numerous reforms in the criminal justice system that may and must be put in place, and so clearly, the recourse to the enactment of a death penalty bill was not in the nature of a last resort, hence, unconstitutional in the absence of compelling reasons. As an initial reaction to Senator Lina's contentions, Senator Tolentino explained that the statement in the preamble is a general one and refers to all the crimes covered by the bill and not to specific crimes. He added that one crime may not have the same degree of increase in incidence as the other crimes and that the public demand to impose the death penalty is enough compelling reason.[16] Equally fit to the task was Senator Wigberto Taada to whom the battle lines were clearly drawn. He put to issue two things: first, the definition of "heinous crimes" as provided for in the death penalty bill; and second, the statement of compelling reasons for each and every capital crime. His interpellation of Senator Tolentino clearly showed his objections to the bill:[17] "Senator Taada. x x x But what would make crimes heinous, Mr. President? Are crimes heinous by their nature or elements as they are described in the bill or are crimes heinous because they are punished by death, as bribery and malversation are proposed to be punished in the bill? Senator Tolentino. They are heinous by their nature, Mr. President, but that is not supposed to be the exclusive criterion. The nature of the offense is the most important element in considering it heinous but, at the same time, we should consider the relation of the offense to society in order to have a complete idea of the heinous nature of these offenses. In the case of malversation or bribery, for instance, these offenses by themselves connected with the effect upon society and the government have made them fall under the classification of heinous crimes. The compelling

reason for imposing the death penalty is when the offenses of malversation and bribery becomes so grave and so serious as indicated in the substitute bill itself, then there is a compelling reason for the death penalty. Senator Taada. With respect to the compelling reasons, Mr. President, does the Gentleman believe that these compelling reasons, which would call for the reimposition of the death penalty, should be separately, distinctly and clearly stated for each crime so that it will be very clear to one and all that not only are these crimes heinous but also one can see the compelling reasons for the reimposition of the death penalty therefor? Senator Tolentino. Mr. President, that matter was actually considered by the Committee. But the decision of the Committee was to avoid stating the compelling reason for each and every offense that is included in the substitute measure. That is why in the preamble, general statements were made to show these compelling reasons. And that, we believe, included in the bill, when converted into law, would be sufficient notice as to what were considered compelling reasons by the Congress, in providing the death penalty for these different offenses. If a matter like this is questioned before the Supreme Court, I would suppose that with the preamble already in general terms, the Supreme Court would feel that it was the sense of Congress that this preamble would be applicable to each and every offense described or punishable in the measure. So we felt that it was not necessary to repeat these compelling reasons for each and every offense. Senator Taada. Mr. President, I am thinking about the constitutional limitations upon the power of Congress to enact criminal legislation, especially the provisions on the Bill of Rights, particularly the one which says that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

Can we not say that under this provision, it is required that the compelling reasons be so stated in the bill so that the bill, when it becomes a law, will clearly define the acts and the omissions punished as crimes? Senator Tolentino. Mr. President, I believe that in itself, as substantive law, this is sufficient. The question of whether there is due process will more or less be a matter of procedure in the compliance with the requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process itself which is a separate matter from the substantive law as to the definition and penalty for crimes. Senator Taada. Under the Constitution, Mr. President, it appears that the reimposition of the death penalty is subject to three conditions and these are: 1. Congress should so provide such reimposition of the death penalty; 2. There are compelling reasons; and 3. These involve heinous crimes. Under these provision of the Constitution, paragraph 1, Section 13, does the distinguished Gentleman not feel that Congress is bound to state clearly the compelling reasons for the reimposition of the death penalty for each crime, as well as the elements that make each of the crimes heinous included in the bill? Senator Tolentino. Mr. President, that is a matter of opinion already. I believe that whether we state the compelling reasons or not, whether we state why a certain offense is heinous, is not very important. If the question is raised in the Supreme Court, it is not what we say in the bill that will be controlling but what the Supreme Court will fell as a sufficient compelling reason or as to the heinous nature whether the crime is heinous or not. The accused can certainly raise the matter of constitutionality but it will not go into the matter of due process. It will go into the very power of Congress to enact a bill imposing the death penalty. So that would be entirely separate from the matter of due process." Senator Francisco Tatad, on his part, pointed out that the death penalty bill violated our international commitment in support of the worldwide abolition of

capital punishment, the Philippines being a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol. Senator Ernesto Herrera clarified, however, that in the United Nations, subject matters are submitted to the different committees which vote on them for consideration in the plenary session. He stressed that unless approved in the plenary session, a declaration would have no binding effect on signatory countries. In this respect, the Philippines cannot be deemed irrevocably bound by said covenant and protocol considering that these agreements have reached only the committee level.[18] After the protracted debate, the Members of the Senate voted on Senate Bill No. 891 on third reading. With seventeen (17) affirmative votes, four (4) negative votes, and one abstention, the death penalty bill was approved on third reading on 16 August 1993. The Senate's vote to pass Senate Bill No. 891 on third reading on 16 August 1993 was a vindication of the House of Representatives.[19]

Bicameral Conference Committee

After the approval on third reading of House Bill No. 62 on 23 February 1993 and of Senate Bill No. 891 on 16 August 1993, the Bicameral Conference Committee convened to incorporate and consolidate them. On 31 December 1993, Republic Act No. 7659, entitled, "An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes," took effect.[20]

Prohibition on the imposition of death penalty

However, on 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines". See Death penalty for more discussions.

References

1. People vs. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, 7 February 1997