SC CIRCULAR NO. 9, May 20, 1987

Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, provides as follows:

“x x x Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. “Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perperua.”

In line with said Article, the Court En Banc issued a
resolution dated April 30, 1987 in Administrative Matter No. 87-5-3173-0, relative to pending cases before the Court wherein the
death penalty has been imposed. The full text of said resolution is
quoted hereunder, for your information :

“Administrative Matter No. 87-5-3173-0, Re: Abolition of Death
Penalty. – The Court took note of the recent decision at the Cabinet
Meeting of April 8, 1987 whereby

1. The President and the Cabinet agreed to refer the matter of defining “heinous crimes” to Congress;
2. The President agreed to issue a statement officially commuting
   to life imprisonment the sentence of those already imposed with death
   penalty, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the 1987
   Constitution; and

3. The President instructed the Secretary of Justice to prepare the necessary documents implementing this pronouncement.’

   in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution.^[1]

The Court, since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, has
likewise in its automatic review of all death sentences imposed by the
trial courts reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua even
in those cases where it found the death sentence to have been properly
imposed in accordance with the law then in force and the evidence of
record.

Considering that by virtue of the foregoing, the death penalty is
no longer imposable, and hence there is no longer any need for
automatic review of the death penalty imposed in those cases presently
under automatic review by the Court^[2]
, the Court Resolved (1) that notices be given to all the accused in
the pending cases before the Court wherein the death penalty has been
imposed, advising said accused that the death penalty imposed upon them
has been officially commuted to reclusion perpetua (life
imprisonment) by virtue of the abolition of the death penalty under the
1987 Constitution and that with such abolition of the death penalty
their cases are no longer subject to automatic review by this Court, and
(2) to GRANT said accused a period of thirty (30) days from notice
within which to file a written statement, personally signed by them with
the assistance of their counsel, stating whether or not they wish to
continue with their said cases as an appealed case:

(a) If they file such statement that they wish to continue with
this Court’s reviewing their conviction as an appealed case, the Court
will do so, rendering a judgment of affirmance, modification of the
penalty or reversal as may be warranted by the evidence and applicable
law, and

(b) If they file a statement that they are satisfied with the
judgment of the trial court whose death penalty has now been commuted to
reclusion perpetua, or if they fail to file any statement within
the 30-day period herein given, the Court will dismiss the case and
remand the same to the trial court for execution of judgment.”

In consonance with the above-quoted Article of the Constitution
and the Court’s above-quoted Resolution, the death penalty is no longer
imposable now. All judges are, therefore, hereby enjoined, until such
time as Congress provides by law for the definition of “heinous crimes”
wherein the death penalty may be imposed, to impose only the penalty of reclusion perpetua
even it. those cases wherein the Revised Penal Code or other special
laws provide for imposition of the death penalty under the circumstances
therein defined, since the Constitution has abolished such penalty for
now

Mav 20, 1987.