7/25/2019 G.R. No. 132601

1/5

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 132601. January 19, 1999]

LEO ECHEGARAY,petitioner, vs. SECRETARY O J!ST"CE, ET AL., respondents.

R E S O L ! T " O N

SYNOPSIS

This is the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplement thereto of the

Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January ! "### temporarily restraining the

e$ecution of the death con%ict &eo 'chegaray (y lethal in)ection* It is the main

su(mission of pu(lic respondents that the +ecision of the case ha%ing (ecome final and

e$ecutory! its e$ecution enters the e$clusi%e am(it of authority of the e$ecuti%eauthority*

The Court ruled that the po,er to control the e$ecution of its decision is an essential

aspect of )urisdiction* It cannot (e the su()ect of su(stantial su(traction for our

Constitution %ests the entirety of judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lo,er

courts as may (e esta(lished (y la,* To be sure, the most important part of a litigation,

whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of decisions where supervening

events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and

adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness. It is because of these unforeseen,

supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the inherent and necessarypower of control of its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and

justice. -or this purpose! Section . of Rule 13 pro%ides that ,hen (y la, )urisdiction is

conferred on a court or )udicial officer! all au$iliary ,rits! processes and other means

necessary to carry it into effect may (e employed (y such court or officer and if the

procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed

out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be

adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules. It (ears repeating

that ,hat the Court restrained temporarily is the e$ecution of its o,n +ecision to gi%e it

reasona(le time to chec/ its fairness in light of super%ening e%ents in Congress as

alleged (y petitioner* The Court! contrary to popular misimpression! did not restrain the

effecti%ity of a la, enacted (y Congress*

!oreover, the temporary restraining order of this "ourt has produced its desired result,

i.e., the crystalli#ation of the issue ,hether Congress is disposed to re%ie, capital

punishment* The pu(lic respondents! thru the Solicitor 0eneral! citeposterior events

that negate (eyond dou(t the possi(ility that Congress ,ill repeal or amend the death

7/25/2019 G.R. No. 132601

2/5

penalty la,* In light of these de%elopments! the Courts TRO should no, (e lifted as it

has ser%ed its legal and humanitarian purpose*

The instant motion is 0R1NT'+*

SY&&12US

1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; RULE ON FINALITY OF JUDGMENT; CANNOT

DIVEST COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION.The rule on finality of judgment cannot divest

this "ourt of its jurisdiction to execute and enforce the same judgment. Retired Justice

Camilo 3uiason synthesi4ed the ,ell esta(lished )urisprudence on this issue as follo,s5

$ $ $ the finality of a judgment does not mean that the "ourt has lost all its powers nor

the case. 2y the finality of the )udgment! ,hat the court loses is its )urisdiction to amend!

modify or alter the same* '%en after the )udgment has (ecome final the court retains its

)urisdiction to e$ecute and enforce it* There is a difference between the jurisdiction of

the court to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.

The former continues even after the judgment has become final for the purpose of

enforcement of judgment$ the latter terminates when the judgment becomes final. $ $ $

-or after the )udgment has (ecome final facts and circumstances may transpire ,hich

can render the e$ecution un)ust or impossi(le*

2. ID.; SUPREME COURT; FINALITY OF DECISION IN CRIMINAL CASES;

PARTICULAR OF EXECUTION ITSELF STILL UNDER CONTROL OF JUDICIAL

AUTHORITY.In criminal cases! after the sentence has (een pronounced and the period

for reopening the same has elapsed! the court cannot change or alter its )udgment! asits )urisdiction has terminated* * * 6hen in cases of appeal or re%ie, the cause has (een

returned thereto for e$ecution! in the e%ent that the )udgment has (een affirmed! it

performs a ministerial duty in issuing the proper order* 2ut it does not follow from this

cessation of functions on the part of the court with reference to the ending of the cause

that the judicial authority terminates by having then passed completely to the %xecutive.

The particulars of the e$ecution itself! ,hich are certainly not al,ays included in the

)udgment and ,rit of e$ecution! in any e%ent are a(solutely under the control of the

)udicial authority! ,hile the e$ecuti%e has no po,er o%er the person of the con%ict

e$cept to pro%ide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon* &'irector of (risons v.

)udge of *irst Instance, 7. Phil* 7.89"#":;