People vs Amigo G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996

 

The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee

Vs.

Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot," Accused-Appellant

 

G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996

 

Facts:

On December 29, 1989 at around 1:00 Pm, Benito Ng Suy was driving their gray Ford Fiera back home, with his daughters, Jocelyn Ng Suy and a younger one together with his two year old son. An accidental head on collision occurred between the Fiera and the Tamaraw being driven by one Virgillio Abogado, with Abogado was the accused, Patricio Amigo alias "Bebot". The collision caused slight damage to the right bumper of the Tamaraw.

 

While Abogado and Benito were having a verbal confrontation, Amigo approached Ng Suy asking the latter to leave the incident as it was only a minor incident. However, Ng Suy said that Amigo should not interfere, which made Amigo irritated and caused the latter to stab Ng Suy, rendering the victim into a critical condition which later caused his death due to a sepsis infection that has already circulated in his body.

 

Amigo was charged initially with Frustrated murder, but was modified to the crime of murder to which he was convicted with a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Accused-Appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harch as a penalty and pleads for sympathy.

 

 

Issue:

Whether or Not the penalty imposed upon the accused "Reclusion Perpetua" be modified or reduced by virtue of Section 19 (1) of Article III of the Constitution which prohibits the imposition of death penalty.

 

Held:

No. The Supreme Court hold that Article III, Section 19 (1) does not change the penalty periods prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except only in so far as it prohibits the imposition of death penalty. The range of the medium and minimum penalties remain the same.

 

Thus, a person originally subject to death penalty and another who committed the murder without the attendance of any modifying circumstances will now be both punishable with the same medium period although the former is conceitedly more guilty than the latter. But that is the will of the constitution and the duty of the court is to apply the law, disregarding the 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.