This landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the impact of Republic Act No. 9346, which abolished the death penalty in the Philippines, on penalties for attempted crimes. The Court ruled that the abolition of the death penalty necessitates a corresponding modification of penalties for crimes that, if consummated, would have been punishable by death. This means that penalties for attempted crimes should now be computed based on reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) instead of death, providing a more lenient sentence for those convicted of attempted offenses.

From Death to Life: How Abolition Reshapes Penalties for Attempted Rape

The case stemmed from the conviction of Alfredo Bon for six counts of rape and two counts of attempted rape against his nieces. With the abolition of the death penalty, the Supreme Court had to determine the appropriate penalties for Bon’s crimes, especially the attempted rape charges. This required a comprehensive analysis of how Republic Act No. 9346 affects the graduated scale of penalties outlined in the Revised Penal Code.

The Court underscored the importance of statutory construction, emphasizing that penal laws should be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. This principle is rooted in the fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, a cornerstone of the Philippine Bill of Rights. Building on this principle, the Court sought to harmonize Republic Act No. 9346 with the existing penal framework to ensure a consistent and just application of penalties.

The key issue was whether the abolition of the death penalty also amended the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court acknowledged two possible interpretations: one limiting the impact of Republic Act No. 9346 to actual executions, and another recognizing its effect on the entire graduated scale. The Court found the latter interpretation more consistent with the intent of the law and principles of statutory construction.

The Supreme Court noted the potential for illogical and inequitable outcomes if Republic Act No. 9346 were interpreted narrowly. For example, accomplices to crimes previously punishable by death could face the same penalties as the principals, an absurd result contrary to established legal thought. To avoid such inconsistencies, the Court ruled that the abolition of the death penalty necessitates a corresponding modification of penalties for all related crimes.

To effectively harmonize Rep. Act No. 9346 with the Revised Penal Code, the term “death” as it was previously inscribed in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, will now need to be negated in order to appropriately downgrade the proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories, frustrated and attempted felonies to the level consistent with the rest of our penal laws. To elaborate, the convicted accomplice in kidnapping for ransom, would now bear the penalty of reclusion temporal, the penalty one degree lower than that the principal would bear (reclusion perpetua). Such sentence would be consistent with Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as Article 71, as amended, to remove the reference to “death.” Moreover, the prospect of the accomplice receiving the same sentence as the principal, an anomalous notion within our penal laws, would be eliminated.

The Court addressed its prior ruling in People v. Muñoz, which held that the constitutional ban on the death penalty did not enact a corresponding modification of other penalties. The Court clarified that Muñoz was decided under different legal premises and does not preclude the conclusion that Republic Act No. 9346 effectively bans the death penalty and modifies related penalties. The Court emphasized that the intent of Republic Act No. 9346 was to eliminate all references and applications of the death penalty in Philippine statutes.

Central to the Court’s analysis was Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, which establishes a graduated scale of penalties. The Court reasoned that by abolishing the death penalty, Republic Act No. 9346 effectively removed “death” from this scale, requiring a recalculation of penalties for crimes graded by reference to it. This ensures that penalties for attempted crimes are proportionate to the severity of the offense and consistent with the overall penal framework.

The Court further clarified that while Republic Act No. 9346 downgraded the penalties for heinous crimes, it did not declassify them as such. This means that the classification of certain crimes as “heinous” remains relevant for determining civil indemnity and other damages awarded to victims. The Court emphasized that the debarring of the death penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346 did not correspondingly declassify those crimes previously catalogued as “heinous”.

The Court then addressed the retroactive effect of its ruling. Citing Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court held that the benefits of Republic Act No. 9346 should be extended retroactively to persons previously convicted of crimes that would have warranted the death penalty, except for habitual criminals. This means that those serving sentences based on the old guidelines may be entitled to a reduction in their penalties.

In appellant’s specific case, The Court sentences appellant Alfredo J. Bon to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole for each of the six (6) counts of consummated rape committed. For the two (2) counts of attempted rape, the Court downgraded by one degree lower the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. It was held that there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of prision mayor should be imposed in it medium period.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was how the abolition of the death penalty by Republic Act No. 9346 affects the penalties for attempted crimes, particularly whether the penalties should be recomputed based on reclusion perpetua instead of death.
What did the Court decide?	The Court decided that the abolition of the death penalty necessitates a corresponding modification of penalties for crimes that, if consummated, would have been punishable by death. Penalties for attempted crimes should now be computed based on reclusion perpetua.
What is Republic Act No. 9346?	Republic Act No. 9346 is a Philippine law that prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for all crimes. It mandates that reclusion perpetua be imposed in lieu of the death penalty.
What is Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code?	Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code establishes a graduated scale of penalties used to determine the appropriate punishment for crimes of varying severity. It was central to the court’s reasoning for the recomputation of penalties.
Does this ruling affect those already serving sentences?	Yes, the ruling has retroactive effect, meaning that persons previously convicted of crimes that would have warranted the death penalty may be entitled to a reduction in their penalties, except for habitual criminals.
What is reclusion perpetua?	Reclusion perpetua is a penalty under the Revised Penal Code that is translated to life imprisonment. This is often imposed for heinous crimes, such as rape, murder and drug-related charges.
What is prision mayor?	Prision mayor is a penalty under the Revised Penal Code with a duration of six years and one day to twelve years.
Is there anything that will not be affected by the death penalty abolition?	Those that were found to be classified as “heinous crimes” will remain as is, even with the abolishment of the death penalty. This means that the classification of certain crimes as “heinous” remains relevant for determining civil indemnity and other damages awarded to victims.

This landmark decision provides much-needed clarity on the impact of the death penalty abolition on the Philippine legal system. By ensuring a consistent and proportionate application of penalties, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to justice and fairness.

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, APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO BON, APPELLANT., G.R. NO. 166401 (FORMERLY G.R. NOS. 158660-67), October 30, 2006