Piandiong vs.

The Philippines

Facts:

Piandiong and Morallos were arrested on 27 February 1994, on suspicion of having

participated, on 21 February 1994, in the robbery of passengers of a jeepney in Caloocan City,
during which one of the passengers, a policeman, was killed. After arriving in the police station,
Piandiong and Morallos were hit in the stomach in order to make them confess, but they refused.
During a line up, the eyewitnesses failed to recognize them as the robbers. The police then placed
them in a room by themselves, and directed the eyewitnesses to point them out. No counsel was
present to assist the accused. During the trial, Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan testified under oath,
but the judge chose to disregard their testimony, because of lack of independent corroboration.

Counsel further complains that the death sentence was wrongly imposed, because the
judge considered that an aggravating circumstance existed, as the crime was committed by more
than three armed persons. However, this was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover,
counsel states that the judge should have taken into account the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, since they came with the police without resisting. Counsel further states
that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses deserved no credence, because the eyewitnesses were
close friends of the deceased and their description of the perpetrators did not coincide with the
way they actually looked. Counsel also states that the judge erred when he did not give credence
to the alibi defence. Finally, counsel complains that the death penalty was unconstitutional and
should not have been imposed for anything but the most heinous crime.

On 7 November 1994, Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan were convicted of robbery with
homicide and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. The Supreme Court
denied the appeal, and confirmed both conviction and sentence by judgement of 19 February
1997. Further motions for reconsideration were denied on 3 March 1998. After the execution
had been scheduled, the Office of the President granted a three-month reprieve of execution.
No clemency was however granted and counsel presented a communication to the Committee
under the Optional Protocol. The Committee transmitted the communication to the State party
with a request to provide information and observations in respect of both admissibility and
merits of the claims. The State party was also requested not to carry out the death sentence
against Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan, while their case was under consideration by the
Committee. The Committee was informed by counsel that a warrant for execution had been
issued. After having contacted the State party’s representative to the United Nations Office at
Geneva, the Committee was informed that the executions would go ahead as scheduled, despite
the Committee’s request, since the State party was of the opinion that the Authors received a
fair trial. Counsel for the Authors filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an injunction,
which was refused by the Court. However, Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan were executed
by lethal injection. Counsel argues that Authors considered resort to the President as a domestic
remedy necessary for them to exhaust before presenting their communication to the Human
Rights Committee. They argue therefore that it was not improper for them to wait until it became
clear that clemency was not going to be granted. With respect to the State party’s argument that
clemency could not be granted because the crime could not be considered as poverty driven,
counsel notes that Messrs. Piandiong, Morallos and Bulan disputed the very finding of their
supposed authorship of the crime.

With regard to the State party’s argument that the Supreme Court has ruled the death
penalty and method of execution constitutional, counsel argues that the Supreme Court’s
judgement deserves to be reconsidered.

Issue/s:

1. The Human Rights Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant.
2. Whether or not the accused were identified in Court by the eyewitnesses and that this
identification was sufficient.
3. Whether or not the courts of States parties, and not for the Committee, shall evaluate facts
and evidence in a particular case, and shall interpret the relevant domestic legislation.
4. Whether or not the crime for which they were convicted was a most serious crime as stipulated
by article 6(2), and whether the re-introduction of the death penalty in the Philippines is in
compliance with the State party’s obligations under article 6(1) (2) and (6) of the Covenant.

Ruling:
1. The Committee notes that the State party has not raised any objections to the admissibility of
the communication. The Committee is not aware of any obstacles to the admissibility of the
communication and accordingly declares the communication admissible and proceeds without
delay with the consideration of the merits
2. Counsel has claimed that the identification of Messrs. Piandiong and Morallos by eyewitnesses
during the police line-up was irregular, since the first time around none of the eyewitnesses
recognized them, upon which they were put aside in a room and policemen directed the
eyewitnesses to point them out. The Court rejected their claim in this respect, as it was
uncorroborated by any disinterested and reliable witness.
3. The Committee reiterates that it is for the courts of States parties, and not for the Committee,
to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, and to interpret the relevant domestic
legislation. There is no information before the Committee to show that the decisions by the
courts were arbitrary or that they amounted to denial of justice. In the circumstances, the
Committee finds that the facts before it do not reveal a violation of the Covenant in this respect.
4. The Committee is not in a position to address these issues, since neither counsel nor the State
party has made submissions in this respect.

The Human Rights Committee of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that it cannot make a finding of a violation of any of the
articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee reiterates its
conclusion that the State committed a grave breach of its obligations under the Protocol by
putting the alleged victims to death before the Committee had concluded its consideration of the
communication.