SC: 75% of death sentences modified

Of the 900 death sentences handed down since the death penalty was restored in 1994, 75 percent were either overturned or modified by the Supreme Court, except for 651 convicts on death row facing lethal injection, according to Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.

In a speech at a book launching ceremony at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City yesterday, Panganiban — who had earlier indicated his opposition to capital punishment — pointed to the high number of death sentences overturned, commuted or "modified" by the tribunal as an argument against the death penalty.

Under the 1994 death penalty law — which Congress voted last Tuesday to repeal — all death sentences are automatically sent to the Supreme Court for review.

Panganiban said the court has been very "meticulous" in reviewing death penalty cases. Changes in death sentences were warranted due to merits in cases or errors made.

Almost 65 percent of death sentences were modified, Panganiban said.

"The modifications came in the form of either a remand for further proceedings or a reduction of the sentence to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) or other lower penalties. Lowering of the penalty was ordered in 483 cases," he said.

There were 65 acquittals, and only 230 death sentences were upheld.

"In sum, the cases in which the judgment of death has been either modified or vacated consist of an astounding 74.64 percent of the total of death penalty cases elevated directly to the Supreme Court on automatic review. That percentage translates to a total of 651 out of 907 appellants saved from lethal injection," Panganiban said.

Panganiban, who earlier revealed his opposition to capital punishment, emphasized that errors are possible in prosecuting defendants.

"As humans are imperfect, judges can make wrongful evaluations. A perfectly innocent individual could die due to human error, not to mention the guile and deceit that could accompany trials. Once carried out, the death sentence can no longer be reversed or modified. This opinion is not a mere sterile speculation. It is real," Panganiban said.

"I maintain the view that the death penalty has no place in our legal firmament. Indeed, in spite of the meticulous scrutiny that the Supreme Court gives to death cases, it is still possible that an innocent person would be held legally guilty and thereafter judicially executed."

To ensure against mistakes, Panganiban said, a change was made in court procedures in 2004 that required death sentences to be sent to the Court of Appeals first for review.

Death sentences upheld by the appellate court were then elevated to the Supreme Court.

Further, the Supreme Court adopted a "two-tier" voting process on the defendant’s guilt and the penalty imposed.

"The Supreme Court now votes separately on the guilt of the accused and on the penalty to be imposed. Through this two-tier voting process, the court hopes and endeavors to ensure, as much as possible, that the possibility of compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the frailties of man are taken into account and all persons convicted of a designated offense treated as uniquely individual human beings, not as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death," Panganiban said.

Panganiban admitted that he believed the High Tribunal may have committed a "judicial error" in upholding the sentence on housepainter Leo Echegaray, who was executed in 1999 for raping his stepdaughter.

He said Echegaray’s penalty "should have been reduced to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment)."

Echegaray was the first death convict to be executed since the reimposition of capital punishment in 1994.

Panganiban explained it was proven in court that Echegaray was a lover of the victim’s mother and the death penalty law decreed death for rape committed by the "common law spouse of the parent of the victim."

"The case of Echegaray is different. He is now in the Great Beyond and a correction of the judicial error can no longer resurrect him," Panganiban said.

"I believe that the surreal outcome of this case reinforces the strongest reason why the death penalty has no place in our statute book. After the execution… errors in its imposition become nightmarishly irreversible."

Angry protests

The bill passed without dissent in the Senate late Tuesday after a more contentious vote in the House of Representatives.

Anti-crime groups, meanwhile, were up in arms over the abolition of the death penalty, warning it would only embolden criminals.

Speaking to reporters in a forum, activists from the Movement for the Restoration of Peace and Order (MRPO) and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) expressed hope that President Arroyo would change her position on the issue and veto the bill repealing the death penalty law.

Malacañang officials said President Arroyo is likely to sign it into law next week. Her spokesman, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, told reporters the administration "welcomes the passage of the bill abolishing the death penalty."

"Our reaction is one of utter disappointment because our organization has always been against the abolition of the death penalty," said Emil Armas, an official of the MRPO.

Armas said he was opposed to capital punishment until the kidnapping of his son a year ago.

"Until our family experienced the kidnapping of my son, we started thinking. After the harrowing experience of a loved one like your son being kidnapped and his life on the line, then probably you will change your position on the death penalty," Armas said.

"Lifting of the death penalty is untimely as far as kidnap-for-ransom cases are concerned. Kidnapping has become a profitable industry (yet) the government is saying it is for the abolition of the death penalty," he added.

Martin Diño, VACC president told the forum that their group was saddened by the decision of lawmakers to repeal the 1994 law.

He complained that anti-crime groups in favor of the death penalty were never invited by lawmakers to the deliberations on the bill.

With the abolition of the death penalty, efforts to curb the incidence of heinous crimes, such as drug trafficking and even terrorism, would be weakened, Diño warned.

"The VACC has been helping prosecute foreign drug traffickers. Are we going to let them live?" he said. "The government claims that the anti-terrorism bill is a priority. What are we going to do to those who bring bombs on the Metro Rail Transit, or to the airport? How are we going to strengthen our campaign on terrorism?"

Diño also appealed to Mrs. Arroyo not to sign the bill into law.

"We hope she will hear our plea," he said. "I hope this is not about politics."

Diño also urged Mrs. Arroyo to consider the trauma of crime victims and their families.

"Let us not hurt victims anymore, whenever the President says that we celebrate the victory and beauty of life. Whose life?" he appealed. "The lives of those who committed heinous crimes? Did they ever think about the beauty of life?"

Earlier, Arroyo administration officials brushed aside speculation that Mrs. Arroyo backed the bill to impress Pope Benedict XVI during her upcoming visit to Rome but conceded that the Pope would be pleased.

"The President has been very consistent. Ever since she was a senator, she has been against the death penalty," noted political adviser Gabriel Claudio.

The European Commission welcomed the death penalty abolition, saying it hoped other countries in the region would follow suit.

"The European Union is against the death penalty everywhere and in all cases, and we are delighted that the government of the Philippines has taken this decision," said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

"It is a decision that respects human rights and the best standards of justice and we hope that others in the region will follow the Philippine example," she added.

Mrs. Arroyo had earlier vowed a "sterner enforcement of the law" as she fended off criticism that her administration was soft on crime.

On April 16, Easter Sunday, she commuted all death sentences to life and, weeks later, certified as "urgent" pending bills in the Senate and the House of Representatives seeking the repeal of Republic Act 8177, which had restored the death penalty in 1994.

Filipinos are divided on the death penalty issue. Supporters argue it is an effective deterrent against crime while opponents argue that more efficient law enforcement and a speedy justice system are the solutions.

The death penalty was abolished after the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 but the 1987 Constitution gave Congress the option of restoring it.

Fueled by public uproar over a series of high-profile murder cases, capital punishment was restored in 1994 for a number of "heinous" crimes such as rape, kidnapping-for-ransom, murder, drug trafficking and treason.

Seven convicts were put to death between 1999 and 2000 until President Joseph Estrada declared a moratorium on executions amid pressure from the Catholic Church and rights groups. A devout Catholic, Mrs. Arroyo continued the moratorium. — With Mike Frialde, Perseus Echeminada, AFP