Philosophy of Law John Paul V.

Valeros

G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION,

HENRY LAGARTO y PETILLA and ERNESTO CORDERO, respondents.

FACTS: The case arose from the conviction of two individuals by the respondent judge with
the crime of Rape with Homicide of seven-year old girl. The accused on the incident also
caused fatal injuries to the minor child by slashing her vagina, hitting her head with a thick
piece of wood and stabling her neck, which were all the direct cause of her immediate death.
Respondent-judge however, instead of imposing the corresponding death penalty, imposed
rather the reclusion perpetua to each accused.

The City Prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the decision be modified
that the penalty be death instead of reclusion perpetua. Respondent-judge still denied the
motion citing religious convictions.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent-judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he failed to attach the corresponding penalty of the
crime of Rape with Homicide.

HELD: Yes, respondent-judge clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in the attaching the proper corresponding penalty of the crime of
Rape with Homicide. According to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, “When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death”, it is clearly stated in the provision that
the penalty should be death. The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt,
the judge should impose the proper penalty provided for by law on the accused regardless of
his own religious or moral beliefs. Respondent-judge is duty bound to emphasize that a court
of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where
the law itself provides for the sentence of death as penalty in specific and well-defined
instances. The discomfort faced by those forced by law to impose the death penalty is an
ancient one, but is a matter upon which judges have no choice. Thus, the petition was granted,
the Court remanded the case back to the respondent-judge for the imposition of death penalty
of the accused.

In Legal Positivism,

The maxim “Dur Lex Sed Lex” (the law is harsh, but it is the law) is an appropriate reference
to this case. Since the Judge acted based on his religious or moral beliefs by imposing
Reclusion Perpetua instead of death. Moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be
established or defended by rational argument, it is clearly mandated in the said provision that
the penalty should be death.