Scribd
Upload
37 views1 page

Legal Analysis: Death Penalty Reduction

The Supreme Court modified the death penalty sentence of Roman Derilo, who was convicted of murder, to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). The 1987 Constitution prohibits the death penalty unless Congress provides for it, and states that any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to life imprisonment. The Court ruled that under the Constitution, a death penalty sentence can be automatically reduced to life imprisonment without requiring presidential action.

Uploaded by

TaJheng Barde
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views1 page

Legal Analysis: Death Penalty Reduction

The Supreme Court modified the death penalty sentence of Roman Derilo, who was convicted of murder, to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). The 1987 Constitution prohibits the death penalty unless Congress provides for it, and states that any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to life imprisonment. The Court ruled that under the Constitution, a death penalty sentence can be automatically reduced to life imprisonment without requiring presidential action.

Uploaded by

TaJheng Barde
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TITLE: People VS.

Roman Derilo
G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

NATURE OF THE CASE: Appeal from a decision of the RTC imposing death penalty

SUPREME COURT DECISION: Judgement of the lower court sentencing accused of death penalty is modified to reclusion
perpetua.

LEGAL DOCTRINE: Words should be given their ordinary meaning except when technical terms are employed; 1987
Constitution – Sec. 19(1)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On January 1, 1982, accused-appellant, together with five other men killed Perpetua Adalim. Only Roman Derilo was
brought in court, and upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. However, upon presentation of evidence, he withdrew his plea
and substituted the same with that of guilty. He was sentenced to suffer death penalty for the crime of murder and appealed
for the modification of the penalty to life imprisonment.
Sec. 19(1) of the Constitution provides that: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress shall hereafter provide for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sentence of death penalty may be reduced without the President’s initiative.

RULING:

Yes, the sentence of death penalty may be reduced without the President’s initiative.

In an en banc resolution, AM No. 87-5-3173-0, it proposed the use of the word “commute” of death penalty to life
imprisonment in Sec. 19(1) of the Constitution. However, in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it was justified
that since commutation can only refer to the power that can be imposed by the President to sentences only final and imposed
by the Courts, the use of such word is changed to “reduce” in order to make the effect automatic without having to wait for
presidential action. It is apparent that no presidential action is necessary in order that the accused avail of the benefit of Sec.
19(1).

As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document, its language should be understood in the sense that it may
have common use. Its words should be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. While to
“commute” necessitates presidential initiative, to “reduce” does not.

Therefore, the accused-appellant is entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

You might also like