Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    People V Patricio Amigo Alias BEBOT

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Patricio Amigo Alias BEBOT

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    24 views1 page
    Case Digest

    Original Title

    People v Patricio Amigo alias BEBOT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    People V Patricio Amigo Alias BEBOT

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    116719 January 18, 1996 People of the Philippines v Patricio Amigo alias
    "BEBOT"
    Facts: The accused Patricio Amigo alias "BEBOT" was accused of the crime of
    MURDER for the death of Benito Ng Suy to which he pleaded not guilty. The accused
    was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant contends that
    under the 1987 Constitution and prior to the promulgation of Republic Act No. 7659, the
    death penalty had been abolished and hence, the penalty that should have been
    imposed for the crime of murder committed by accused-appellant without the
    attendance of any modifying circumstances, should be reclusion temporal in its medium
    period or 17 years, 4 months and 1 day, to 20 years of reclusion temporal.

    Issues:
    (1) Whether or not Section 19(1) Article III of the Constitution declares the abolition
    of the death penalty

    (2) Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh a
    penalty?

    Held:

    (1) No, the provision did not declare the abolition of death penalty.

    It is a settled rule of legal hermeneutics that if the language under consideration


    is plain, it is neither necessary nor permissible to resort to extrinsic aids, like the
    records of the constitutional convention, for its interpretation.

    In this case, the provision merely says that the death penalty shall not be
    imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes the Congress
    hereafter provides for it and, if already imposed, shall be reduced to reclusion
    perpetua. The language, while rather awkward, is still plain enough. And

    (2) Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of courts is to apply the
    law, disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused. DURA LEX
    SED LEX. The remedy is elsewhere - clemency from the executive or an
    amendment of the law by the legislative, but surely, at this point, this Court can
    but apply the law.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy