THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLI 
) 
OF THE PHILIPPINE§ 
) 
First Regular Session 
) 
S E N A T E  
S. No. 
"04 JUM 36 
2 53 
Introduced by Senator S. R. Osmefia 111 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
On December 13, 1993, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659, or the Death 
Penalty Law 
as the strongest deterrent against heinous crimes. 
Today, some eight 
years hence, there is no indication that the incidence of crime, especially crimes of 
violence has been reduced as a result of this deterrent. 
Ar~y punishment designed to deliver justice should address two objectives: a) that 
of recompensing the victims for injuries inflicted, and b) of reforming the criminal. 
Capital punishment serves neither of these ends: the injuries inflicted by heinous crimes 
are as a rule irreversible, and the opportunity of reforming the criminal is lost 
permanently when he is put to death. Perversely, a society which seeks to protect itself 
from crimes of violence through capital punishment ends up party to the propagation of 
violence by its sanction of the act of the taking of life, even as a punishment. .. . 
. 
The far weightiest argument against capital punishment is that in the event that 
an innocent person is by error convicted of a heinous crime and put to death, there is no 
way that the mistake can ever be corrected. 
In a society where there is a gaping 
chasm between the resources available to the rich and poor, where funding for public 
defendants is always inadequate, where the justice system is known more for its defects 
and weaknesses rather than its reliability, our adoption of capital punishment runs the 
risk of perpetuating an extremely unjust system. 
The effectiveness of deterrents against crime rests not only on the weight of the 
deterrent itself, but also on the probability of being apprehended and punished for any 
crime committed. In the Philippines, the well-known weakness of the law enforcement 
system 
renders any deterrent ineffective, no matter how fearsome it may be. It is 
proposed that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, combined with a more 
faithful enforcement of the law, would be a far more effective deterrent to crime than 
what we have at present. 


'. . 
. 
We Filipinos have always taken pride in being the only Christian nation in Asia. 
Our acceptance of capital punishment stands out as a blatant contradiction to the 
Christian values of forgiveness, compassion and respect for human life that we claim 
to uphold. 
In view of the foregoing, early passage of this bill is earnestly requested 
SERGIO OSMENA Ill 
Senator 
'. . 


1 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
'04 
JljM 30 P2 :53 
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC 
) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
1 
First Regular Session 
1 
* 
S E N A T E  
S. No. 
~~~~~ 
I 
.
I
 
I
.
 
Introduced by Senator S. R. Osmeiia 111 
AN ACT 
PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA 
INSTEAD OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN CASES WHERE THE LAW PRESCRIBES 
THE DEATH PENALTY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 
Be enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: 
SECTION I. The provision of any law, rule or regulation to the contrary 
notwithstanding, the penalty of reclusion perpefua or life imprisonment, as the case may 
be, without entitlement to any allowance for good conduct, special time allowance for 
loyalty, or parole, instead of the death penalty, shall henceforth be imposed in cases 
where the law prescribes the imposition of the death penalty for the violation of its 
provisions.. 
SEC. 2. 
Any person who has been meted out the death penalty by final 
judgment shall have his sentence commuted and serve it in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act. 
SEC. 3. Republic Act No. 7659, as amended by Republic Act No. 8177, and all 
other laws, decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof, which are contrary to or 
inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. 
.. . 
. 
SEC. 4. Articles 25, 40, 70, 71, and 74 of the Revised Penal Code are expressly 
repealed or modified insofar as they provide for the penalty of death as a principal 
15 
penalty and for its accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code 


1 
SEC. 5. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
“Article 63. Rules for the Application of lndivisible Penalties. - In all 
2 
3 
4 
5 
cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be 
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating 
circumstances that may have attended the commission of thk deed. 
’. 
, 
. 
6 
7 
8 
9 
[In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two 
indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the 
ap p I ication thereof: 
10 
11 
I, When in the commission of the deed there is present only one 
12 
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied 
13 
2. 
When 
there 
are 
neither mitigating nor aggravating 
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be 
14 
15 
applied. 
3. When the commission of the act is att,ended by some mitigating 
16 
17 
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser 
18 
penalty shall be applied. 
19 
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended 
20 
the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset 
21 
22 
one another in consideration of their number and importance, with the 
preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.] 
SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in two (2) 
23 
24 
national newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved,