Case Summary (G.R. No. 208775)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Conditional pardon paper signed by the President: January 19, 1996.
- Release by Bureau of Corrections: January 25, 1996.
- Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal by the accused: received by the Supreme Court on January 11, 1996.
- Earlier Supreme Court Resolution directing re-arrest and show-cause: July 30, 1996.
- Committee members’ Comment/explanation submitted: August 28, 1996.
- NAC letter informing favorable action on amnesty: dated September 26, 1996 (action taken by NAC on February 22, 1996).
- Final resolution of the Court: March 7, 1997 (decision rendered under the 1987 Constitution).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The Court relied on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Section 19, Article VII, which limits the exercise of the President’s clemency power (pardon, reprieve, commutation) to acts granted after conviction by final judgment. The Court also distinguished amnesty from pardon, following the doctrine in Barrioquinto v. Fernandez as to the differing legal characters and effects of amnesty and pardon.
Composition, Mandate, and Procedures of the Committee and Secretariat
The President constituted the Committee in August 1992 with the Secretary of Justice as Chairman and other Cabinet officials as members; membership was later expanded to include human-rights and peace-process representatives. A Secretariat composed of representatives from the DOJ (Chief State Prosecutor and State Counsel), Board of Pardons and Parole, Bureau of Corrections, PNP Legal Service, Judge Advocate’s Office (AFP), Office of the Solicitor General, and CHR Legal Services was tasked to process and evaluate applications for bail, release, pardon, or amnesty. The Secretariat evaluated applicants and recommended to the Committee those who qualified under the Committee’s guidelines.
Guidelines and Practice Adopted by the Committee
The Committee’s amended guidelines (December 9, 1992) allowed persons charged or convicted of common crimes to apply if they could establish by sufficient evidence that the crimes were committed in pursuit of political objectives. In practice, the Secretariat and the lawyers representing applicants (often NGO lawyers from TFDP, FLAG, KAPATID, PAHRA, etc.) had an arrangement that, simultaneous with processing pardon or release applications, motions to withdraw any pending appeals would be filed with the Supreme Court. This undertaking was described as generally verbal rather than written.
Review of Casido and Alcorin by Working Group and Secretariat
A Working Group convened February 9–11, 1995 to review cases of purported political prisoners at New Bilibid Prison; it included a DOJ State Prosecutor, a CHR Commissioner, and an OPAPP representative. The Working Group reviewed the cases of Alcorin and Casido and issued Resolution No. 1 recommending them to the Secretariat for conditional pardon, based on a determination that their crimes may have been committed in pursuit of political objectives. The Secretariat then recommended conditional pardon to the Committee and ultimately to the President.
Timeline and Specifics of the Conditional Pardon Grant
The Working Group’s recommendation led to a Committee recommendation dated May 25, 1995. The President approved the recommendations on December 29, 1995; the conditional pardon paper was signed January 19, 1996, and the Bureau of Corrections released the accused-appellants on January 25, 1996. The Secretariat stated it had believed the NGO lawyers would file the required motions to withdraw appeals, and thus recommended the applications without securing written proof of withdrawal.
Supreme Court’s Prior Direction and Secretariat’s Response
Following the Court’s July 30, 1996 Resolution declaring the conditional pardons void for being granted during the pendency of the appellants’ appeal and directing re-arrest and a show-cause order to Committee officers, the Secretariat (Mariano and Ballacillo) submitted an explanation (August 28, 1996), detailing the Committee’s formation, guidelines, Secretariat membership, processing practice, and the claimed verbal undertaking by NGOs to file withdrawals of appeals. The Secretariat acknowledged failure to verify that the appeals were actually withdrawn and attributed the lapse to an honest but mistaken belief that the NGO lawyers would perform their undertaking.
National Amnesty Commission Action and Documents
The National Amnesty Commission (NAC), created under Proclamation No. 347 (March 25, 1994) and operating to receive and decide amnesty applications, favorably acted on the amnesty applications of Alcorin and Casido on February 22, 1996. The NAC’s favorable action was communicated to the Court by the NAC chairman on September 26, 1996, and the Proclamation No. 347 regime was noted to carry with it extinguishment of any criminal liability for acts committed in pursuit of political beliefs and restoration of civil and political rights.
Legal Distinction: Amnesty versus Pardon
The Court reiterated the established distinction: pardon is a private act by the Chief Executive, typically granted after conviction by final judgment and forgiving the punishment but not erasing the offense; amnesty is a public proclamation (often by Proclamation with congressional concurrence) that obliterates the offense itself, may be granted before or after prosecution or conviction, and restores the person to the legal position as if no offense had been committed. The Court cited Barrioquinto and other precedent to confirm these doctrinal differences and their practical consequences.
Court’s Conclusions on Validity of Conditional Pardon and Amnesty
Applying Section 19, Article VII of the 1
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208775)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 336 Phil. 344; 94 OG No. 6, 917 (February 9, 1998), Third Division; docketed as G.R. No. 116512, March 07, 1997.
- The case involves the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee and William O. Casido and Franklin A. Alcorin as accused-appellants.
- This Court issued an earlier Resolution on 30 July 1996 addressing conditional pardons that had been granted to the accused-appellants during the pendency of their appeal.
- The 30 July 1996 Resolution determined that the conditional pardons were void because they were granted on 19 January 1996 while the instant appeal was pending; it directed re-arrest and reconfinement of the accused-appellants, suspended further action on the appeal until re-arrest, and required certain officers to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
- Subsequent filings and comments by the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, or Pardon (the Committee) Secretariat, a Compliance submission, and a letter from the Chairman of the National Amnesty Commission (NAC) informed further proceedings and the Court’s final disposition.
Facts and Chronology Relevant to Clemency and Procedural Events
- The Committee recommended conditional pardon to 123 applicants and absolute pardon to eight applicants as of June 27, 1994.
- The Committee recommended conditional pardons for the subject prisoners by Memorandum dated May 25, 1995; the President approved on December 29, 1995. The conditional pardon paper was signed by the President on January 19, 1996; the subjects were released by the Bureau of Corrections on January 25, 1996.
- Prior to release, the subject prisoners filed an "Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal" which was received by the Supreme Court on January 11, 1996.
- The Secretariat failed to verify whether counsel for the accused had actually withdrawn the appeals before endorsing the applications for conditional pardon to the Committee and President.
- A Working Group of the Secretariat convened February 9–11, 1995 to review cases of prisoners alleged to have committed crimes in pursuit of political objectives; the Working Group issued Resolution No. 1 recommending certain prisoners, including Alcorin and Casido, to the Secretariat for conditional pardon consideration.
- The National Amnesty Commission (NAC) favorably acted on the applications for amnesty of Franklin A. Alcorin and William O. Casido on February 22, 1996, as communicated in a letter dated September 26, 1996; Proclamation No. 347 (March 25, 1994) creates and empowers the NAC and provides that a grant of amnesty extinguishes criminal liability for acts committed in pursuit of political beliefs and restores civil and political rights.
Resolution of 30 July 1996 (Initial Court Directives)
- The Court ruled that the conditional pardons granted on January 19, 1996 were void because they had been extended during the pendency of the appeal.
- The Court denied the accused-appellants’ Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal.
- The Bureau of Corrections was directed, with assistance of the Philippine National Police, to re-arrest and reconfine the accused-appellants at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa within sixty (60) days from notice, and to submit a report within the same period.
- Further action on the appeal was suspended pending re-arrest.
- The Court required officers of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon to show cause within thirty (30) days why they should not be held in contempt for recommending and acting favorably on applications for pardon despite the pending appeals.
Secretariat’s Comment of 28 August 1996 — Explanation and Representations
- The Comment was submitted by two Secretariat members: Nilo C. Mariano (Assistant Chief Prosecutor) and Nestor J. Ballacillo (Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor General).
- The Secretariat explained the Committee’s constitution by the President on August 11, 1992, with the Secretary of Justice as Chairman and specified members, later expanded to include the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and a presidential adviser on the peace process.
- On December 9, 1992, the President issued an amendment to the guidelines allowing those charged, detained, or convicted of common crimes who could establish by sufficient evidence that they actually committed offenses enumerated (i.e., crimes against national security/public order and Articles of War) to apply for bail, release, or pardon under the guidelines.
- A Secretariat was constituted to process and evaluate applications and recommend qualified applicants to the Committee. The Secretariat’s membership included representatives from the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, Board of Pardons and Parole, Office of the Chief State Counsel, Bureau of Corrections, PNP Legal Service, Judge Advocate’s Office-AFP, Office of the Solicitor General, and CHR Legal Services.
- It was an agreed practice between the Secretariat and the counsel of applicants—typically NGO lawyers (TFDP, FLAG, KAPATID, PAHRA, among others)—that simultaneous with processing applications, motions for withdrawal of appeals must be filed by the applicants with the Supreme Court.
- The Secretariat stated that, under that arrangement, conditional pardons were granted to many applicants and that the Committee recommended conditional pardons for the subject prisoners after the Secretariat evaluated that their crimes were committed in pursuit of political belief.
- The Secretariat acknowledged that it failed to verify whether the counsel of the accused had withdrawn their appeals and that it acted upon an honest belief that NGO lawyers would perform the agreed undertaking to file motions to withdraw appeals.
- The Secretariat insisted there was no intent to violate Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution and characterized the lapse as a misappreciation of fact, attributing their actions to sincere and zealous effort to participate in government confidence-building measures.
- As a corrective measure, the Secretariat/Committee stated it would require applicants for executive relief to show proof that their appeal had been withdrawn and approved before acting on applications, per handwritten instructions from President Fidel V. Ramos and recommendation of Chief