People v.

Mercado
GR No. 116239, 29 November 2000

DOCTRINES:

The death penalty is not a cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment. It is an

exercise of the states power to secure society against the threatened and actual evil.

FACTS:

The defendants were convicted by the trial court with the crime of kidnapping with
murder and sentencing them the punishment of death.

The defendants raised the constitutionality of death penalty and the alleged haste of the
trial court in deciding the case resulting in grave and serious errors committed in
convicting the accused.

ISSUE + RULING

1. Whether or not death penalty is unconstitutional and "cruel, unjust, excessive or

unusual punishment."

NO, the death penalty is not unconstitutional. As settled in People vs. Echagaray, death
penalty is not a "cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment." It is an exercise of the
state's power to "secure society against the threatened and actual evil". Procedural and
substantial safeguards to insure its correct application are established.

2. Whether or not the trial courts haste in deciding the case resulted to grave and
serious errors to the prejudice of the defendants.

NO, the contention of the defendants that the speed the trial court decided their case
resulted in grave and serious errors to their prejudice. A review of the trial court's
decision shows that its findings were based on the records of this case and the
transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial. The speed with which the trial
court disposed of the case cannot thus be attributed to the injudicious performance of its
function.

Indeed, a judge is not supposed to study a case only after all the pertinent pleadings
have been filed. It is a mark of diligence and devotion to duty that a judge studies a case
long before the deadline set for the promulgation of his decision has arrived. The one-
day period between the filing of accused-appellants' memorandum and the promulgation
 of the decision was sufficient time to consider their arguments and to incorporate these
in the decision.

As long as the trial judge does not sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor
of a speedy but reckless disposition of a case, he cannot be taken to task for rendering
his decision with due dispatch. The trial court in this case committed no reversible errors
and, consequently, except for some modification, its decision should be affirmed.