Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Republic Act No. 9346 An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    andrea ibanez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic Act No. 9346 An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    andrea ibanez
    6 views9 pages

    Original Title

    4RA-9346

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    6 views9 pages

    Republic Act No. 9346 An Act Prohibiting The Imposition of Death Penalty in The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    andrea ibanez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

     

    REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346


    AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION
    OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
     SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited.
    Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven
    (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal
    Injection is hereby repealed, Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred
    Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all
    other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death
    penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

     SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:


    (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the
    nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or

    (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use
    of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
     SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
    whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall
    not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the
    Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

     SEC. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at least once
    a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation of the
    names of persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or life
    imprisonment by reason of this Act who are being considered or recommended for
    commutation or pardon: Provided, however; That nothing herein shall limit the
    power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19, Article VII of
    the Constitution.
    CASES
     People vs Abon
     In view of the effectivity of RA 9346, the penalty of death is reduced to
    reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
     Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the
    Death Penalty in the Philippines, took effect on June 29, 2006. Under
    Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the imposition of the death penalty is prohibited,
    and in lieu thereof, it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when
    the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
    Revised Penal Code (RPC); or life imprisonment, when the law violated
    does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
    Consequently, in the provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals, death
    penalty cases are no longer operational.
     PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HERMIE M. JACINTO
     The Court sustained the conviction of the appellant in view of the straightforward testimony of
    the victim and the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the defense witnesses
     The Court did not exempt accused of his criminal liability although he was only 17 during the
    commission of the crime since, in view of the circumstances to which accused committed the
    felony, it was proved that he acted with discernment. (Sec 6, RA 9344). There was showing that
    the accused understood the consequences of his action.
     Applying,  the provision of RA 9346, the accused was meted with reclusion perpetua instead of
    the death penalty.
     PEOPLE Vs QUIACHON
     Appellant is entitled of the benefit under Section 2 of R.A. 9346. It imposed that: a) the penalty
    of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of
    the Revised Penal Code; or b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not
    make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. Also pursuant to the
    criminal law principle of favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda (penal laws which are
    favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect) and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
    provides for the retroactivity of penal laws.
     People vs Alfredo Bon
     The consummated felony previously punishable by death would now be punishable by
    reclusion perpetua. At the same time, the same felony in its frustrated stage would, under
    the foregoing premise in this section, be penalized one degree lower from death, or
    alsoreclusion perpetua. It does not seem right, of course, that the same penalty of reclusion
    perpetua would be imposed on both the consummated and frustrated felony. By reason of
    Rep. Act No. 9346, he is spared the death sentence, and entitled to the corresponding
    reduction of his penalty.

     People of the Philippines vs. Santos 


     involves the rape of a 5-year old child. The accused was meted the penalty of
    death because rape committed against a ‘child below seven (7) years old’ is
    a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of
    capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The
    sentence was also reduced to reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of
    parole.
     People vs. Salome 
     involves a rape of a 13-year old girl (who got pregnant), committed in a dwelling and with
    the aid of a bladed weapon. The imposable penalty should have been death, but with the
    abolition of the Death Penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion
    perpetua, without the possibility of parole.

     People of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua 


     involves the murder of a victim who suffered 18 stab wounds which were all directed to her
    chest, heart and lungs. Considering the existence of the qualifying circumstance of evident
    premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, and taking advantage of
    superior strength without any mitigating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty would
    have been death. However, with the abolition of the death penalty law, the penalty
    imposed was reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole.
     People v. Agcanas
     Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, thus, with an ordinary aggravating
    circumstance of dwelling, the imposable penalty is death for each of two (2) counts of
    murder. However, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, proscribing the imposition of
    the death penalty, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should be reclusion
    perpetua for each of the two (2) counts of murder without eligibility for parole. With
    regard to the four (4) counts of attempted murder, the penalty prescribed for each count
    is prision mayor.

     People v. Sarcia
     The crime of robbery with rape is a special complex crime punishable under Art. 294 of the RPC as
    amended by R.A. No. 7659; Art. 294 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when
    the robbery is accompanied by rape; in view, however, of the passage of R.A. No. 9346, prohibiting
    the imposition of the death penalty, the trial court and the appellate court correctly imposed the
    penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. (People vs. Llamera, G.R. No. 218703,
    April 23, 2018) p.
     People vs Castro and Talita

     Since the killings were committed in 1998, the trial court as well as the CA
    were correct in imposing upon appellant Christopher the supreme penalty
    of death. In view, however, of the passage and effectivity of Republic Act
    (R.A.) No. 9346[48] on June 24, 2006, proscribing the imposition of the
    capital punishment,[49] the proper imposable penalty on appellant is
    reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, in line with Sections 2
    and 3 of the said law.

    You might also like