Title
People vs. Casido
Case
G.R. No. 116512
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1996
Accused granted conditional pardons during appeal; Supreme Court ruled pardons void, ordered re-arrest, citing constitutional requirement for final judgment before clemency.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116512)

Applicable Law and Procedural History

The applicable law derives from the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly the provisions regarding the limitations on presidential pardons and clemency, as well as prior decisions of the Supreme Court that guide the application of these constitutional provisions. The procedural history reflects an appeal by the accused, initiated with a supplemental notice of appeal filed on December 8, 1993. The appellate court ultimately accepted the appeal and scheduled a series of submissions from both the defense and the prosecution.

Motion to Withdraw Appeal

On January 11, 1996, the accused-appellants filed an undated urgent motion to withdraw their appeal. This motion was notable for lacking substantive reasons for the withdrawal. An indorsement from Venancio J. Tesoro, Superintendent IV of the Bureau of Corrections, conveyed that the appellants were informed of the legal implications of their motion and that it was made voluntarily.

Conditional Pardon and Its Legal Standing

Subsequent to the motion to withdraw being filed, documentation indicated that both accused-appellants were granted conditional pardons on January 19, 1996, and released from prison on January 25, 1996. However, the pardons were granted during the pendency of their appeal, raising significant legal concerns regarding their validity under established jurisprudence. The resolutions from previous cases indicated that a pardon, whether full or conditional, cannot be granted if an appeal is still ongoing.

Court's Ruling on the Conditional Pardon

The court declared the conditional pardons granted to Casido and Alcorin as void, reinforcing that such clemency during the pendency of an appeal violates the principle established in the 1987 Constitution and various resolutions from prior cases. Specifically, the court pointed to the necessity of a final judgment before any form of clemency could be considered, thereby rendering the actions of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon as illegal in this context.

Directive for Re-arrest and Future Action

As a result of the findings, the co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.