Should death penalty be restored for heinous crimes which the then 1993 law described as “grievous, odious and hateful offenses” and which -- “by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity -- are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality...?”

The 1993 law on the imposition of death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 had been repealed and deleted in the statute books by RA 9346 in 2006.

On the reimposition of death penalty, legal circles said the country’s legislators and the public should consider a recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling which detailed how a husband killed his one-year-eight-month-old son with his own daughter he sexually abused almost 10 years ago somewhere in Northern Luzon.

The SC ruling contained in a resolution made public last March 21, however, did not mention anything on the restoration of death penalty. It only tackled, as it affirmed the guilty verdict on the husband for parricide, the proper penalty that should be imposed under existing laws.

(The names of the persons involved in the case are omitted by Manila Bulletin which merely denominate them as husband, wife, daughter or mother of the boy, son of the husband with daughter or husband’s grandson since the boy was son of his daughter.)

Facts of the case as culled by the SC from the regional trial court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) decisions showed that the husband sexually abused his daughter who got pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy.

When the boy was one year and eight months old, the daughter decided to escape from the husband. The daughter and his baby boy were accompanied by the wife.

They were chased in a mountainous area and the husband pelted them with stones along the way.

The baby boy was hit in the head. The husband grabbed the boy and smashed him several times against tree until the boy died. As a result of the continuous smashing, the boy was decapitated. The husband left the boy’s body under the tree.

The husband was charged with parricide which is a person’s “killing of a father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse.”

The daughter and the wife testified against the husband. The daughter also testified on the husband’s sexual abuse. The husband denied the charges and offered an alibi.

The trial court convicted the husband and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua (a maximum of 40 years in jail) without eligibility for parole. The CA affirmed the trial court’s verdict. The case was elevated to SC to automatic appeal.

In affirming the trial court and the CA’s rulings with modification, the SC said:

“There is no showing that (the daughter) and (the wife) were impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant (husband). It has been held that in the absence of any ill motives on the part of the witnesses, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.

“In any event, against the positive testimonies of (the daughter) and (the wife) as well as the photographs of (the boy’s) cadaver and the certificate of death, appellant's denial and alibi easily crumble. Denial is the weakest of all defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.

“Verily, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions drawn from these factual findings are accorded the highest respect by the appellate court, whose review power is limited to the records of the case.

“This explains why this Court, which is not a trial court, is loathe to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence that had been analyzed and dissected by the trial court, and sustained and affirmed by the appellate court.”

The SC, however, slightly modified the penalty imposed by both the trial court and the CA. It said:

“Both courts below erred when they sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

“Pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02, 11 the phrase ‘without eligibility for parole’ shall be used to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua only if the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for RA 9346.

“Thus, appellant should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua only. Correspondingly, the monetary awards should be reduced in order to be commensurate with the revised designation of the penalty.

“In accordance with recent jurisprudence, P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P75,000 as exemplary damages are awarded to the Heirs of (the boy). We further award PS0,000 as temperate damages.

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10326 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant (the husband) is found GUILTY of PARRICIDE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

“He is required TO PAY the Heirs of (the boy) P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, P75,000 as exemplary damages, and P50,000 as temperate damages. All monetary awards are subject to six percent (6%) legal interest from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. SO ORDERED.”