Scribd
Upload
428 views1 page

People vs. Esparas

A woman named Josefina A. Esparas was charged with importing 20 kilograms of shabu into the country in violation of drug laws. She escaped from jail after her arraignment and was tried in absentia, found guilty, and given the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that it would automatically review her death sentence as required by law, in order to determine the justice and legality of the sentence given the facts of the case, as this procedure provides a chance to save her life.

Uploaded by

Dana Denisse Ricaplaza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
428 views1 page

People vs. Esparas

A woman named Josefina A. Esparas was charged with importing 20 kilograms of shabu into the country in violation of drug laws. She escaped from jail after her arraignment and was tried in absentia, found guilty, and given the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that it would automatically review her death sentence as required by law, in order to determine the justice and legality of the sentence given the facts of the case, as this procedure provides a chance to save her life.

Uploaded by

Dana Denisse Ricaplaza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs.

Esparas
G.R. No. 120034, August 20, 1996
Facts:
Accused Josefina A. Esparas was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A.
No. 759 for importing into the country twenty (20) kilograms of "shabu"
After arraignment, the accused escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. On March 13, 1995,
the trial court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her the death penalty.
Issue:
whether or not it will proceed to automatically review her death sentence
Ruling:
No. Having received the highest penalty which the law imposes, he is entitled under that law to
have the sentence and all the facts and circumstances upon which it is founded placed before
the highest tribunal of the land to the end that its justice and legality may be clearly and
conclusively determined. Such procedure is merciful. It gives a second chance for life. Neither
the courts nor the accused can waive it.

You might also like