In People vs. Patricio Amigo, the Supreme Court addressed whether the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19(1), which abolished the death penalty, altered the penalties for murder. The Court affirmed that while the death penalty was removed, the range of other penalties, including reclusion perpetua, remained unchanged. This decision clarified that individuals committing murder, absent any modifying circumstances, would still face reclusion perpetua, highlighting the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying laws, even when constitutional changes occur. The case underscores the importance of legislative action in prescribing and modifying penalties.

From Collision to Conviction: Examining Intent and Constitutional Limits in a Murder Case

The case began with a minor traffic accident in Davao City on December 29, 1989. Benito Ng Suy, after a collision with an orange Toyota Tamaraw, confronted Virgilio Abogada, the driver. Patricio Amigo, a passenger in the Tamaraw, intervened, advising Benito to dismiss the incident. Irritated, Benito told Patricio not to interfere, leading to a heated exchange where Patricio sarcastically asked if Benito was Chinese. After Benito confirmed his ethnicity, Patricio left only to return moments later, stabbing Benito multiple times. Benito later died from his injuries. This tragic sequence of events led to Patricio Amigo’s conviction for murder.

Initially charged with frustrated murder, the case was amended to murder following Benito’s death. The trial court found Patricio Amigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, along with ordering him to indemnify the victim’s family for damages. The central legal question arose from the defense’s argument that the imposition of reclusion perpetua was erroneous because Section 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution was already in effect when the offense was committed.

Accused-appellant argued that since the death penalty was abolished, the penalty should be computed from reclusion perpetua downwards to reclusion temporal in its medium period, which is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years. This argument was based on the premise that the abolition of the death penalty should correspondingly reduce the remaining penalties. However, the Supreme Court referred to its previous ruling in People vs. Muñoz (170 SCRA 107 [1989]), which addressed this very issue. The Court in Muñoz had initially established that the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution limited the penalty for murder to reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

However, the Court in People vs. Muñoz, reconsidered this earlier stance. It recognized that Article III, Section 19(1) does not explicitly abolish the death penalty but rather prohibits its imposition unless Congress provides for it in heinous crimes. The provision also states that if the death penalty has already been imposed, it should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court clarified its interpretation of Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution, stating that the provision:

…does not change the periods of the penalty prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. The range of the medium and minimum penalties remains unchanged.

The Court emphasized that the penalties are prescribed by statute and are legislative in nature, and judges can only interpret and apply them, not modify or revise their range. This delineation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature is fundamental in maintaining the balance of government functions.

Moreover, the Court acknowledged potential inequities arising from this interpretation, such as individuals originally subject to the death penalty and those committing murder without aggravating circumstances being punishable with the same medium period. However, it clarified that such outcomes are a result of the constitutional provision and legislative determination, rather than judicial discretion. The Court reinforced the principle that penalties are a matter of statutory law, falling under the exclusive domain of the legislature.

The Court also addressed the accused-appellant’s plea for sympathy, stating that courts must apply the law regardless of personal feelings. The remedy for perceived harshness lies in executive clemency or legislative amendment. This position underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the law, even when faced with difficult or sympathetic cases. The Court cited the principle of DURA LEX SED LEX, meaning the law is harsh, but it is the law, reinforcing the obligation to adhere to legal statutes despite potential personal sentiments.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, imposing reclusion perpetua on Patricio Amigo. The Court found no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the commission of the offense, making the medium period of the penalty applicable. This consistent application of established legal principles reinforces the rule of law and provides a clear framework for future cases.

The Supreme Court has also reiterated its position in subsequent cases, such as People vs. Parojinog (203 SCRA 673 [1991]) and People vs. De la Cruz (216 SCRA 476 [1992]), affirming the principle that the abolition of the death penalty does not alter the existing range of other penalties for murder.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the abolition of the death penalty by the 1987 Constitution altered the penalty range for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused argued for a reduction in penalty due to the removal of the death penalty.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court ruled that the abolition of the death penalty did not change the range of other penalties prescribed for murder. Therefore, reclusion perpetua remained the applicable penalty in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
What is reclusion perpetua?	Reclusion perpetua is a term of imprisonment in the Philippines. It carries a penalty of imprisonment for at least twenty years and one day up to forty years.
What is the significance of Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution?	Article III, Section 19(1) abolished the death penalty unless Congress provides for it in heinous crimes. It also mandates that if the death penalty has already been imposed, it shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Did the Supreme Court change its stance on the interpretation of Article III, Section 19(1)?	Yes, the Supreme Court initially interpreted the abolition of the death penalty as necessitating a corresponding reduction in other penalties but later reverted to its original interpretation. It maintained that only the death penalty was affected, and the other penalties remained unchanged.
What happens if there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances?	If there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the court will consider these factors in determining the appropriate penalty within the prescribed range. The presence of such circumstances can affect the final sentence imposed.
Can courts modify penalties based on sympathy for the accused?	No, courts are obligated to apply the law as it is written, regardless of personal feelings of sympathy or pity for the accused. The remedy for perceived harshness lies in executive clemency or legislative amendment, not judicial modification.
What was the original charge against Patricio Amigo?	Patricio Amigo was initially charged with frustrated murder. However, the charge was amended to murder after the victim, Benito Ng Suy, died from his injuries.
What was the basis of the initial altercation?	The initial altercation arose from a minor traffic accident between the victim’s vehicle and another vehicle in which the accused was a passenger. The argument escalated after the accused intervened and exchanged heated words with the victim.

In conclusion, People vs. Patricio Amigo serves as a landmark case that clarifies the impact of constitutional changes on existing criminal penalties. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that while constitutional amendments may abolish certain penalties, the range of other penalties remains unchanged unless explicitly altered by legislative action, preserving the balance between judicial interpretation and legislative prerogative.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Amigo, G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996