G.R. No.

116719 January 18, 1996 causes independent of his will, that is, because of the
timely and able medical assistance immediately
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, rendered to the said Benito Ng Suy.
vs.
PATRICIO AMIGO alias "BEBOT", accused-appellant. (p. 1, Rollo.)

DECISION to which he pleaded not guilty.

MELO, J.: Subsequently, due to the death of the victim, an amended

Information was filed charging now the crime of murder, to wit:
Initially, Patricio Amigo was charged with frustrated murder in
an Information reading as follows: That on or about December 29, 1989, in the City of
Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
The undersigned accuses the above-named accused Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused,
of the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER, under Art. armed with a knife, with treachery and evident
248, in relation to Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, premeditation and with intent to kill wilfully, unlawfully
committed as follows: and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stabbed with
said weapon one Benito Ng Suy, thereby inflicting upon
That on or about December 29, 1989, in the City of the latter multiple wounds which caused his death and
Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this the consequent loss and damage to the heirs of the
Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, victim.
armed with a knife, with treachery and evident
premeditation and with intent to kill wilfully, unlawfully (p. 3, Rollo.)
and feloniously attacked, assaulted and stab with said
weapon one Benito Ng Suy, thereby inflicting injuries After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a decision,
upon the latter, the following injuries, to wit: disposing:

MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS-LEFT ARM, LEFT WHEREFORE, finding the accused Patricio Amigo
CHEST, ABDOMEN AND LEFT THIGH WITH guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
PENETRATION TO LEFT PLEURAL CAVITY, MURDER punishable under Art. 248 of the Revised
DIAPHRAGM STOMACH, DUODENUM, Penal Code, with no modifying circumstance present,
PANCREAS AND MIDTRANVERSE COLON. the accused is hereby sentenced to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, which is the medium period of
thus performing all the acts of execution which should the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum to
have produced the crime of murder as a consequence death and to pay the cost; to indemnify the offended
but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of party the amount of P93,214.70 as actual damages
 and P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and the comer of the said hospital. (TSN, April 29, 1991, p.
P50,000.00 as moral damages. 4; TSN, March 31, 1992, pp. 3 and 13)

(p. 32, Rollo.) With Virgilio was Patricio Amigo alias Bebot, a
vulcanizer at Lingling's vulcanizing shop owned and
Reversal thereof is now sought, with accused-appellant operated by a certain Galadua. He was also seated at
arguing that error was committed by the trial court in imposing the right front seat beside Virgilio.
or meting out the penalty of reclusion perpetua against him
despite the fact that Sec. 19 (1), Article III of the 1987 Due to the unexpected veer made by Virgilio, an
Constitution was already in effect when the offense was accidental head on collision occurred between the
committed. Fiera and the Tamaraw, causing a slight damaged to
the right bumper of the latter. (TSN, March 31, 1992, p.
The facts of the case, as briefly summarized in the brief 4)
submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General and as borne
out by the evidence, are as follows: Right after the collision, Benito immediately alighted
from the driver's seat and confronted Virgilio Abogada
On December 29, 1989, at around 1:00 P.M., after who also went down from his vehicle. (TSN, April 29,
having spent half-day at their store, located at No. 166- 1991, p. 5)
A, Ramon Magsaysay Avenue, Davao City, Benito Ng
Suy was driving their gray Ford Fiera back home, Benito, who was a big man with a loud voice told
situated at the back of Car Asia, Bajada, Davao City. Virgilio, "You were not looking," to which Virgilio
With him during that time were his daughters, Jocelyn retorted, I did not see you". (TSN, April 29, 1991, p. 16)
Ng Suy and a younger one together with his two year
old son, who were all seated at the front seat beside While the two drivers where having this verbal
him while a five year old boy was also seated at the confrontation, Patricio who was merely a passenger of
back of the said vehicle. (TSN, April 29, 1991, pp. 3-5; Virgilio also alighted from the front seat of the Tamaraw
TSN, March 31, 1992) and instantaneously approached Benito and advised
the latter to leave since it was merely a small and minor
On their way home and while traversing the National accident. (TSN, April 29, 1991, pp. 16-18)
Highway of Bajada, Davao City, an orange Toyota
Tamaraw driven by one Virgilio Abogada, suddenly A bit irritated with the actuation exhibit by Patricio,
made a left turn in front of the Regional Hospital, Benito rebuked the former and told him not to interfere,
Bajada, Davao City, without noticing the Ford Fiera since he had nothing to do with the accident. (ibid. p. 7)
coming from the opposite direction. This Tamaraw was
heading for Sterlyn Kitchenette, which was situated at Irked by the comment made by Benito, Patricio
sarcastically asked; "You are Chinese, is it you?" With
a ready answer Benito said; "Yes, I am a Chinese and (ibid. pp. 6, 10, 18, 21-22) Only after her father lay
why?" Patricio in turn replied; So, you are a Chinese, seated on the floor of their Ford Fiera after being hit on
wait for a while," then left. (ibid. pp. 7 and 19) the left side of his body that she was able to open the
door of the said vehicle. (Ibid. p 12)
Immediately thereafter, Benito ordered Jocelyn to call a
policeman, but after a lapsed of about one minute, After this precise moment, her younger sister, upon
Patricio returned and arrogantly approached Benito, seeing their father bathing with his own blood,
asking the latter once again, "You are a Chinese, is it embraced him, causing Patricio to cease from his
not?" To this Benito calmly responded in the ferocious assault and noticing the presence of several
affirmative. (ibid. pp. 7, 19-20) people, he fled. (Ibid. p. 22)

Upon hearing the response, Patricio mumbled "Ah, so Thereafter, an enraged Jocelyn chased him, but since
you are a Chinese," and suddenly took a five inch knife the assailant ran faster than her, she was not able to
from his waist and simultaneously stabbed Benito overtake him, thus, she instead decided to go back to
hitting him twice on the chest. (Ibid. p. 20) where her father was and carried him inside the
Tamaraw who bumped them and consequently brought
After being hit, Benito wounded and sensing that his him to San Pedro Hospital where he was attended to at
life was in peril, tried to evade his assailant by pushing the Emergency Room. (ibid. p 13)
Patricio away and run around the Tamaraw but Patricio
wielding the same knife and not content with the While at the Emergency Room, Benito who was on a
injuries he had already inflicted, still chased Benito and very critical condition, due to multiple (13) stabbed
upon overtaking the latter embraced him and thrusted wounds, was operated by Dr. Rolando Chiu. After the
his knife on the victim several times, the last of which operation, he was subsequently brought to the ICU and
hit Benito on the left side of his body. (ibid. pp. 8, 10, stayed there for three (3) weeks. (July 12, 1991, pp. 3
22) and 4)

It was at this juncture that Jocelyn who was still inside In a last ditch effort to save his life, having only 10 to 20
the Ford Fiera, pleading for mercy to spare her father percent survival, Benito was airlifted to Manila and was
tried to get out of the vehicle but it was very unfortunate directly confined at the Chinese General Hospital. After
that she could not open its door. (Ibid. p. 10) three (3) weeks of confinement, Benito expired.
CAUSE OF DEATH — SEPSIS (an overwhelming
Knowing that Patricio was really determined to kill her infection). This means that the infection has already
father by refusing to heed her pleas, Joselyn shouted circulated in the blood all over the body. (ibid. pp. 6-7)
for help, since there were already several people
around witnessing that fatal incident, but to her (pp. 59-65, Rollo.)
consternation nobody lifted a single finger to help them.
Accused-appellant contends that under the 1987 Constitution Melencio-Herrera in People vs. Masangkay and
and prior to the promulgation of Republic Act No. 7659, the through Justice Andres R. Narvasa in People
death penalty had been abolished and hence, the penalty that vs. Atencio, divided the modified penalty into three new
should have been imposed for the crime of murder committed periods, the limits of which were specified by Justice
by accused-appellant without the attendance of any modifying Edgardo L. Paras in People vs. Intino, as follows: the
circumstances, should be reclusion temporal in its medium lower half of reclusion temporal maximum as the
period or 17 years, 4 months and 1 day, to 20 years minimum; the upper half of reclusion
of reclusion temporal. temporal maximum as the medium; and reclusion
perpetua as the maximum.
Reasons out accused-appellant:
The Court has reconsidered the above cases and, after
. . . Since the death penalty (or capital punishment) is extended discussion, come to the conclusion that the
not imposable when the stabbing and killing happened, doctrine announced therein does not reflect the
the computation of the penalty should be regarded intention of the framers as embodied in Article III,
from reclusion perpetua down and not from death Section 19(1) of the Constitution. This conclusion is not
penalty. Indeed, the appropriate penalty is deducible unanimous, to be sure. Indeed, there is much to be
from reclusion perpetua down to reclusion temporal in said of the opposite view, which was in fact shared by
its medium period. Hence, there being no modifying many of those now voting for its reversal. The majority
circumstances present (p. 5 Decision, ibid.), the correct of the Court, however, is of the belief that the original
penalty should be in the medium period (Art. 64, par. 1, interpretation should be restored as the more
Revised Penal Code) which is 17 years, 4 months and acceptable reading of the constitutional provision in
1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal. question.

(p. 10, Appellant's Brief, ff. p. 50, Rollo.) The advocates of the Masangkay ruling argue that the
Constitution abolished the death penalty and thereby
The question raised by accused-appellant was settled by this limited the penalty for murder to the remaining periods,
Court in People vs. Muñoz (170 SCRA 107 [1989]) thusly: to wit, the minimum and the medium. These should
now be divided into three new periods in keeping with
In People vs. Gavarra, Justice Pedro L. Yap declared the three-grade scheme intended by the legislature.
for the Court that "in view of the abolition of the death Those who disagree feel that Article III, Section 19(1)
penalty under Section 19, Article III of the 1987 merely prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and
Constitution, the penalty that may be imposed for has not, by reducing it to reclusion perpetua, also
murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period correspondingly reduced the remaining penalties.
to reclusion perpetua," thereby eliminating death as the These should be maintained intact.
original maximum period. Later, without categorically
saying so, the Court, through Justice Ameurfina A.
A reading of Section 19(1) of Article III will readily show another or — strangely, considering their loquacity
that here is really nothing therein which expressly elsewhere — did not say enough.
declares the abolition of the death penalty. The
provision merely says that the death penalty shall not The original ruling as applied in the Gavarra,
be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving Masangkay, Atencio and Intino cases represented the
heinous crimes the Congress hereafter provides for it unanimous thinking of the Court as it was then
and, if already imposed, shall be reduced to reclusion constituted. All but two members at that time still sit on
perpetua. The language, while rather awkward, is still the Court today. If we have seen fit to take a second
plain enough. And it is a settled rule of legal look at the doctrine on which we were all agreed
hermeneutics that if the language under consideration before, it is not because of a change in the composition
is plain, it is neither necessary nor permissible to resort of this body. It is virtually the same Court that is
to extrinsic aids, like the records of the constitutional changing its mind after reflecting on the question again
convention, for its interpretation. in the light of new perspectives. And well it might, and
can, for the tenets it lays down are not immutable. The
xxx xxx xxx decisions of this Court are not petrified rules grown
rigid once pronounced but vital, growing things subject
The question as we see it is not whether the framers to change as all life is. While we are told that the
intended to abolish the death penalty or merely to trodden path is best, this should not prevent us from
prevent its imposition. Whatever the intention was, opening a fresh trial or exploring the other side or
what we should determine is whether or not they also testing a new idea in a spirit of continuing inquiry.
meant to require a corresponding modification in the
other periods as a result of the prohibition against the Accordingly, with the hope that "as judges, (we) will be
death penalty. equal to (our) tasks," whatever that means, we hereby
reverse the current doctrine providing for three new
It is definite that such a requirement, if there really was periods for the penalty for murder as reduced by the
one, is not at all expressed in Article III, Section 19(1) Constitution. Instead, we return to our original
of the Constitution or indicated therein by at least clear interpretation and hold that Article III, Section 19(1)
and unmistakable implication. It would have been so does not change the periods of the penalty prescribed
easy, assuming such intention, to state it categorically by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except only
and plainly, leaving no doubts as to its meaning. insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. The range
One searches in vain for such a statement, express or of the medium and minimum penalties remains
even implied. The writer of this opinion makes the unchanged.
personal observation that this might be still another
instance where the framers meant one thing and said The Court realizes that this interpretation may lead to
certain inequities that would not have arisen under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code before its award of civil indemnity for the heirs of each of the
modification. Thus, a person originally subject to the victims is affirmed but the amount thereof is hereby
death penalty and another who committed the murder increased to P30,000.00 in line with the present policy.
without the attendance of any modifying circumstance
will now be both punishable with the same medium (at pp. 120-125.)
period although the former is concededly more guilty
than the latter. True enough. But that is the will not of The above ruling was reiterated in People vs. Parominog (203
this Court but of the Constitution. That is a question of SCRA 673 [1991]) and in People vs. De la Cruz (216 SCRA
wisdom, not construction. Of some relevance perhaps 476 [1992]).
is the parable in the Bible of the workman who was
paid the stipulated daily wage of one penny although Finally, accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion
he had worked longer than others hired later in the day perpetua is too cruel and harsh a penalty and pleads for
also paid the same amount. When he complained sympathy. Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The
because he felt unjustly treated by the hoe jurisdiction duty of courts is to apply the law, disregarding their feeling of
of the court over the person. An appearance may be sympathy or pity for an accused. DURA LEX SED LEX. The
madt agree with me for a penny? remedy is elsewhere — clemency from the executive or an
amendment of the law by the legislative, but surely, at this
The problem in any event is addressed not to this Court point, this Court can but apply the law.
but to the Congress. Penalties are prescribed by
statute and are essentially and exclusively legislative. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
As judges, we can only interpret and apply them and
have no authority to modify them or revise their range SO ORDERED.
as determined exclusively by the legislature. We should
not encroach on this prerogative of the lawmaking
Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Francisco and Panganiban,
body.
JJ., concur.
Coming back to the case at bar, we find that there
being no generic aggravating or mitigating
circumstance attending the commission of the
offenses, the applicable sentence is the medium period
of the penalty prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code which, conformably to the new doctrine
here adopted and announced, is still reclusion
perpetua. This is the penalty we imposed on all the
accused-appellants for each of the three murders they
have committed in conspiracy with the others. The