INTRODUCTION TO LAW CASE DIGESTS ECHEGARAY VS.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE301 SCRA 96, JANUARY 19, 1999 Facts: Leo Echegaray was convicted and was to be executed by lethalinjection (RA 8177) The Supreme Court issued a temporaryrestraining order restraining the execution of said party. Saidexecution was set for Jan. 4, 1999 but the petitioner filed his VeryUrgent Motion for Issuance of TRO on Dec. 28, 1998. The Court wasin recess at the time but a Special Session was called to deliberate onsaid matters. Furthermore, Congress was a new one with about 130new members whose views on capital punishment were stillunexpressed. The suspension was temporary (until June 15, 1999,unless it sooner becomes certain that no repeal or modification of thelaw is going to be made). It was alleged that sine it is already finaland executory, the Supreme Court has lost its jurisdiction with thecase. Issue: Whether or not in issuing the temporary restraining order, the Supreme Court has gone beyond its jurisdiction since the case isalready final. Ruling: It is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. What the SC could not do is alter the decision. In the case at hand, the SCdid nothing of the sort. Jurisprudence tells us the finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers nor thecase. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains its jurisdiction to executeand enforce it. There is a difference between the jurisdiction of thecourt to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to amend, modify oralter the same. The former continues even after the judgment hasbecome final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment; the latterterminates when the judgment becomes final. For after the judgment has become final, facts and circumstances may transpire which canrender the execution unjust or impossible.