Leo Echegaray vs.

 Secretary of Justice, et al
G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999
 FACTS:
 On June 25, 1996, petitioner was convicted for the rape of his
 common law spouse’s ten year old daughter and was sentenced to death
  penalty. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raised for the
first time the constitutionality of RA 7659 “The Death Penalty Law”, and imposition of death penalty for the
crime of
 rape. The motions were denied with the court finding no reason to declare it unconstitutional
and pronouncing Congress complaint with the requirements for its imposition. Act. 8177 was passed
amending Art. 8 of the RPC as amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7659. The mode of execution was changed from
electrocution to lethal injection.
 The Secretary of Justice promulgated the rules and regulations to implement RA 8177 and directed the
Director of Bureau of Corrections to prepare the Lethal Injection Manual.Petitioner filed a petition for
prohibition, injunction and TRO to enjoin the Secretary of Justice and Director of Bureau of Prisons from
carrying out the execution, contending that RA 8177 and its implementing rules are unconstitutional and
void. The Executive Judge of the RTC of Quezon City and Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 104 were later
implemented enjoin them from setting a date of execution.On March 3, 1998, the court required respondents
to comment and mandated the parties to maintain status quo. Petitioner found a very urgent motion to clarify
status quo and to request for TRO until resolution of the petition. 
 The Solicitor General filed a comment on the petition dismissing the claim that the RA in question is
unconstitutional and providing arguments in support of his contention. CHR filed a motion for Leave of
Court to intervene and appeal as Amicus Curiae alleging that the
death penalty is cruel and degrading citing applicable provisions and statistics showing how other countries
have abolished the death penalty and how
some have become abolitionists in practice. Petitioner filed a reply stating that lethal injection is cruel, degrading,
inhumane and violation of the international Covenant on Civil and political Rights.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court abused its discretion in granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the execution
of Echegaray despite the fact that the finality of judgment has already been
 
rendered… that by granting the
TRO, the Honorable Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an executive function.
RULING:
 No. Respondents cited sec 19, art VII. The provision is simply the source of power of the President to grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment.The
provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the enforcement of their
decisions after their finality.The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a
death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no higher right than the right to life.For
the public respondents therefore to contend that only the Executive can protect the right to life of an accused after
his final conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our
government