Retroactive Application of Penal Laws: When Abolition of Death Penalty Benefits Accused

TLDR: This case clarifies that the abolition of the death penalty by the 1987 Constitution retroactively benefits accused individuals even if their cases were pending when the abolition took effect. Subsequent re-imposition of the death penalty cannot negate this accrued benefit, emphasizing the principle of favoring the accused in penal law.

G.R. No. 125539, July 27, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine facing the harshest penalty under the law, only for that very law to be abolished while your case is still being decided. What happens then? This question is not merely academic; it touches upon the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law. In the Philippines, the case of People vs. Patalin, Jr. delves into this complex issue, specifically concerning the retroactive application of the constitutional abolition of the death penalty. Accused of heinous crimes including robbery and rape, Alfonso Patalin, Jr., Alex Mijaque, and Nestor Ras initially faced the death penalty. However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which abolished capital punishment. This case became a crucial battleground for determining whether this abolition would retroactively benefit those already facing death sentences or those with pending cases.

The central legal question in People vs. Patalin, Jr. is clear: Does the constitutional abolition of the death penalty in 1987 retroactively apply to cases pending at the time of ratification, thus preventing the imposition of the death penalty even if it was the applicable punishment when the crime was committed?

LEGAL CONTEXT: RETROACTIVITY OF PENAL LAWS AND THE ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY

Philippine criminal law operates under the principle of prospectivity, meaning laws generally apply to future actions, not past ones. However, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code introduces a crucial exception: penal laws can have retroactive effect if they are favorable to the accused, provided the accused is not a habitual criminal. This principle of retroactivity in favor of the accused is rooted in the concept of lex mitior, or the milder law. It recognizes that if the state, through a new law, deems a past punishment too harsh, those currently facing or serving that punishment should benefit from the more lenient law.

The 1987 Constitution significantly altered the penal landscape by abolishing the death penalty in Article III, Section 19(1):

“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. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.”

This provision unequivocally abolished the death penalty at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. Crucially, it also mandated that “any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua,” indicating an intent for immediate and retroactive effect on existing death sentences. The Constitution, however, left the door open for Congress to reinstate the death penalty for heinous crimes, which it later did through Republic Act No. 7659, taking effect in 1994.

The legal challenge in cases like People vs. Patalin, Jr. arises from the interplay between this retroactive abolition and the subsequent re-imposition of the death penalty. Did the abolition grant a vested right against capital punishment to those with pending cases, a right that could not be taken away by the later re-imposition?

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE NIGHT OF ROBBERY AND RAPE, AND THE COURT’S DELIBERATION

The case revolves around two separate but related incidents on August 11, 1984, in Lambunao, Iloilo. In the first incident, Alfonso Patalin, Jr. and Alex Mijaque, along with others, robbed the house of Corazon Aliman, injuring her son Reynaldo. In the second, the same group, now including Nestor Ras, targeted the Carcillar household, committing robbery and multiple rapes against Perpetua, Juliana, and Rogelia Carcillar, and Josephine Belesario.

Here’s a chronological breakdown of the key events and legal proceedings:

1. August 11, 1984: Robberies and rapes occur in Lambunao, Iloilo.
2. 1985: Accused are charged with robbery with physical injuries and robbery with multiple rape in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City.
3. 1987: The 1987 Constitution is ratified, abolishing the death penalty.
4. November 12, 1985: Accused plead “not guilty.”
5. June 14, 1995: RTC renders a joint judgment, convicting the accused. Patalin and Mijaque are sentenced to imprisonment for robbery with physical injuries. Patalin, Mijaque, and Ras are sentenced to death for robbery with multiple rape.
6. Accused appeal to the Supreme Court: They argue against their conviction, question the legality of Patalin’s arrest without a warrant, and challenge the death penalty in light of the 1987 Constitution.

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the trial court’s findings, affirming the factual findings regarding the commission of the crimes and the positive identification of the accused by the victims. The Court gave significant weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting its superior position to observe witness demeanor. The Court stated:

“Of primordial consideration in appellate matters is the legal principle that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination… We generally uphold and respect this appraisal since, as an appellate court, we do not deal with live witnesses but only with the cold pages of a written record.”

However, the crux of the Supreme Court’s decision lay in the penalty. The Court acknowledged that while robbery with rape was punishable by death in 1984, the 1987 Constitution intervened. The Court reasoned:

“True, in 1987, the Constitution abolished the death penalty subject to Congress’ future restoration thereof ‘for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.’ At the time of such ratification, the instant case was still at its trial stage. No penalty had as yet then been imposed. Considering that the provision provides that ‘[a]ny death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua,’ it is clear that the framers intended said provision to have a retroactive effect on cases pending without any penalty of death having been imposed yet.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the abolition of the death penalty in 1987 had retroactive effect, benefiting the accused in pending cases. This benefit, once accrued, could not be negated by the subsequent re-imposition of the death penalty in 1994. Therefore, the death penalty imposed by the trial court was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court, however, affirmed the convictions for robbery and rape and increased the civil liabilities awarded to the victims, including indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count of rape.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: VESTED RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LENITY

People vs. Patalin, Jr. firmly establishes the principle that the retroactive application of a law favorable to the accused creates a vested right. Once the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, individuals facing capital punishment—even in pending cases—gained the right to be spared execution. This right became fixed and could not be undone by the later enactment of the Death Penalty Law.

This ruling underscores the importance of the principle of lex mitior and the broader principle of in dubio pro reo – when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused. It reinforces the idea that penal laws should be interpreted and applied in a way that is most beneficial to those facing criminal charges, especially when it comes to fundamental rights and severe penalties.

Key Lessons:

• Retroactivity in Favor of the Accused: Penal laws that are favorable to the accused are generally applied retroactively in the Philippines.
• Vested Rights: Abolition of a penalty creates a vested right against that penalty for those facing it at the time of abolition, even if cases are pending.
• Constitutional Supremacy: Constitutional provisions, especially those relating to fundamental rights, take precedence over ordinary laws.
• Rule of Lenity: In cases of doubt, interpretations of penal laws should favor the accused.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What does “retroactive application of penal laws” mean?

A: It means that a new penal law can apply to crimes committed before the law was enacted, particularly if the new law is more lenient or favorable to the accused.

Q: What is reclusion perpetua?

A: Reclusion perpetua is a severe penalty in the Philippines, meaning life imprisonment. It is distinct from absolute perpetual imprisonment and has specific conditions for parole eligibility after serving 40 years.

Q: If the death penalty is re-imposed again in the future, will it apply to crimes committed before the re-imposition?

A: According to the principle established in People vs. Patalin, Jr. and the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, any re-imposition of the death penalty would likely be applied prospectively, meaning it would only apply to crimes committed after the re-imposition takes effect, not retroactively.

Q: What are moral damages and exemplary damages in rape cases?

A: Moral damages are awarded to compensate the victim for emotional distress, suffering, and mental anguish. Exemplary damages are awarded to set an example for public good and are often imposed in cases involving heinous crimes to deter similar conduct.

Q: What should I do if I believe my rights as an accused person are being violated?

A: If you believe your rights are being violated, it is crucial to seek legal counsel immediately. A lawyer can advise you on your rights, represent you in court, and ensure due process is followed.

Q: How does conspiracy affect criminal liability?

A: In conspiracy, when two or more people agree to commit a crime and carry out that plan, each conspirator is held equally liable for the crime, regardless of their specific role in its commission.

Q: What is the significance of “positive identification” in criminal cases?

A: Positive identification by credible witnesses is crucial evidence in criminal cases. It means witnesses directly and confidently identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, and this identification is given significant weight by the courts, especially when witnesses have no apparent motive to lie.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Human Rights Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.