GR 116719; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116719 ; January 18, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PATRICIO AMIGO alias “BEBOT”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Patricio Amigo was initially charged with frustrated murder after stabbing Benito Ng Suy on December 29, 1989, following a minor vehicular collision. The victim succumbed to his injuries, leading to the filing of an amended Information for murder. The trial court found Amigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay damages. The conviction was based on evidence that after the collision, Amigo, a passenger in one vehicle, intervened in the argument between the drivers. After a verbal exchange where the victim identified himself as Chinese, Amigo left, returned with a knife, and stabbed the unarmed victim multiple times, chasing him as he tried to flee.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, considering that Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, and the offense was committed after the effectivity of said Constitution.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The legal logic is that the constitutional provision only prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua; it does not alter the prescribed penalties under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code or their ranges. The penalty for murder under Article 248 is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applying the rules for graduating penalties, the medium period of this range remains reclusion perpetua. The Court, in People vs. Muñoz, had previously established that with no modifying circumstances, the proper penalty is the medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. This interpretation, while potentially creating inequities by placing a more guilty offender (originally subject to death) on the same level as one without modifying circumstances, is dictated by the Constitution’s will. The Court’s role is to interpret and apply the law, not to modify penalties, which is a legislative prerogative. The plea for sympathy is unavailing; the Court must apply the law as written.