PEOPLE v.

PATALIN
July 27, 1999 | Melo, J. | TOPIC

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines

SUMMARY: Mijaque and Patalin were found guilty in 2 criminal cases (first was for robbery with physical injuries, second was for
robbery with multiple rape). For the second one, RTC imposed the death penalty. This was challenged by the accused, who argued
that the ratification of the Constitution effectively rendered death penalty abolished.

Upon automatic review of the SC, it was ruled that indeed the death penalty shall not be imposed for them in the second criminal case.
At the time of the ratification of the constitution, their case was still pending. This puts them within the ambit of the provision. It was a
year after that when Congress enacted the Death Penalty Law, which CANNOT, in any way, be applied to the accused, since it shall
not have a retroactive effect, for the very obvious reason that this does not favor the accused at all.

SC ruled here that there is no question that the abolition of death penalty benefits the accused. The framers of the Constitution
themselves state that the law to be passed by Congress reimposing the death penalty can only have prospective application.
SC further mentioned that Since the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested, the rule in
statutory construction is that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective application UNLESS the purpse and intent of
the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly so mentioned or necessarily implied from language used.

DOCTRINE: A subsequent statute cannot be so applied retroactively as to impair a right that accrued under the old law. The courts
have thus given statues strict construction to prevent their retroactive operation in order that the statutes would not impair or interfere
with vested or existing rights.

Peo v. Patalin

• The abolition of the death penalty and its subsequent reimposition. Those accused of crimes prior to the reimposition of the death
penalty have acquired vested rights under the law abolishing it.

• Courts have thus given statutes strict constriction to prevent their retroactive operation in order that the statutes would not impair
or interfere with vested or existing rights. Accusedappellant ‘s rights to be benefited by the abolition of the death penalty accrued or
attached by virtue of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. This benefit cannot be taken away from them.

FACTS:
1. Accused Mijaque and Patalin Jr., were charged before the RTC with the crime of robbery.
2. In the information it was mentioned that they were cooperating with 3 others who were armed with weapons and took Php
300.00, adjustable wrench, vise grip, screw driver, a pair of levis pants, a travelling bag, and a wallet with Php 10.00, (total
value Php 400.00), Total cash and personal property was priced at Php 700.00. That in the process, the two accused hacked
Reynaldo Aliman twice, and inflicted injuries to the other victims (Corazon Aliman and Belesari Aliman).
3. In a second information, the accused Mijaque, Patalin Jr., and Ras were charged with robbery with multiple rape, but this
time, it was indicated that the amount stolen as Php 500.0, a ring, Seiko wrist watch, making the total amount of the personal
effects and cash at Php 6,500.00. That in the process, they then raped Perpetua Carcillar, Juliana Carcillar, Rogelia Carcillar,
and Josephine Belesario.
4. Upon arraignment they pleaded not guilty to both crimes charged. RTC found them guilty of both, crimes. (for second crime,
with death penalty)
5. Aggrieved, accused argue that, among others, the trial court wrongly imposed the penalty of death, as it was supposedly
suspended upon the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. By automatic review, the SC now hears the case.

ISSUE/s:
 1. WoN the imposition of the death penalty is correct – NO

RULING: SC affirmed the RTC ruling but modified the penalty for the second case and removed death penalty, and replaced it with
reclusion perpetua.

RATIO:
1. At the time the crimes were charged were committed in 1984, robbery with rape was punishable by death. But by virtue of
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty was abolished. Here’s the particular provision (par. 1, Sec. 19, Art.
III): Sec. 19(1) Excesive 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 Congres hereafter provides for it. Any
death penalty imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2. The abolition of the death penalty immediately took effect upont he ratification, but left the matter open for Congress to
revive at its discretion “for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.”
3. Congress restored death penalty thru the Death Penalty Law (RA 7659), which took effect Jan 1, 1994.
4. The accused argue that since the Constitution’s abolition of death penalty had retroactive effect being beneficial to the
accused, the restoration of death penalty in 1994 will no longer cover them despite the fact that the RTC ruled on their case
1995 (Death Penalty law already in effect)
5. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, their case was in the trial stage, and no penalty was still imposed.
Considering that the provision provides that “any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua,” it is
clear that the framers intended to have a retroactive effect on cases pending WITHOUT any penalty of death having been
imposed yet.
6. Upon ratification of the Constitution, any death penalty imposed is automatically commuted.There is no doubt that the
abolition of the death penalty retroactively affected and benefited the accused. Art. 22 of the RPC says that penal laws shall
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor a person guilty of a felony x x x.
7. SC ruled here that there is no question that the abolition of death penalty benefits the accused. The framers of the
Constitution themselves state that the law to be passed by Congress reimposing the death penalty can only have prospective
application.
8. SC further mentioned that
9. Since the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested, the rule in statutory
construction is that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective application UNLESS the purpse and intent of
the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly so mentioned or necessarily implied from language used.