Echegaray vs secretary of justice

GR no. 132601

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 impleaded to 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 violative 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.

HELD: 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.

Additionaly, The Court held that the power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect
of jurisdiction and cannot be subject to substantial subtraction. The Court emphasized the importance of
the process of execution of decisions where supervening events may change the circumstance of the
parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness. The
TRO issued by the Court only temporarily restrained the execution of its own decision to allow for a
check of its fairness in light of supervening events in Congress.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court grants the public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and
Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and lifts the Temporary Restraining Order
issued in its Resolution of January 4, 1999.

The Court also orders respondent trial court judge (Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada, Regional Trial Court,
Quezon City, Branch 104) to set a new the date for execution of the convict/petitioner in accordance
with applicable provisions of law and the Rules of Court, without further delay.

SO ORDERED.