Case Summary (G.R. No. 103567)
Procedural History and Background
The RTC rendered its decision on November 18, 1991, convicting the accused-appellants. The appellants filed their Notices of Appeal, which the Supreme Court accepted on March 24, 1993. Subsequently, Francisco Salle, Jr. moved to withdraw his appeal, which was granted after verification that he signed the motion under a mistaken belief linking it to his early release due to a presidential conditional pardon granted on December 9, 1993. Salle was released from custody on December 28, 1993. Conversely, Ricky Mengote was also granted conditional pardon and immediately left for his province but did not file any motion to withdraw his appeal.
Constitutional Provision Governing Pardons
The basis for adjudication is Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which limits the President’s power to grant pardons to “after conviction by final judgment,” except in cases of impeachment or as otherwise provided in the Constitution. This provision mandates that pardons shall be granted only when the conviction has attained finality—a judgment becomes final upon the exhaustion or waiver of all appeals.
Historical and Legal Development of the Pardoning Power
Historically, under the Jones Law and the 1935 Constitution, the executive had the power to grant pardons after conviction but without the necessity of finality, allowing pardons during the pendency of appeals. Under the 1973 Constitution, the requirement to grant clemency only after final conviction was introduced but later removed in amendments, reverting to earlier rules. However, the 1987 Constitution restored the stricter limitation requiring a final conviction by judgment prior to the grant of a pardon. This reinstatement emphasizes the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that executive clemency does not interfere with the judicial process while appeals remain unresolved.
Legal Analysis of the Enforcement of Conditional Pardon During Pending Appeal
Given the constitutional limitation, the Supreme Court concluded that the conditional pardon granted to Ricky Mengote during the pendency of his appeal was premature and unenforceable. The mere acceptance of the conditional pardon does not automatically imply abandonment or waiver of the appeal under the 1987 Constitution. The appeal must be withdrawn or rendered final before any pardon can be legally recognized or enforced. This ensures the integrity of the judicial process and respects the appellate court’s exclusive jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal.
Obligations of Government Authorities Regarding Pardons
Government entities, including the Bureau of Corrections and the Board of Pardons and Parole, must verify that no appeal is pending before any application for pardon or parole is processed. They are required to demand proof of finality, such as a certification from the trial or appellate court confirming the absence or withdrawal of an appeal. Acceptance of a pardon without final conviction and prior withdrawal of appeal is illegal and can impose administrative liability on those responsible for the release of the accused.
Policy Considerations and Judicial Precedents
The Court reiterated previous rulings emphasizing that grants of pardons or parole during pendency of appeals cause confusion and undermine the judicial process. The decision underscored prior directives from the Court in People v. Sepada and People v. Hinlo, which explicitly prohibited the processing of pardons while appeals are pending. These rulings serve as authoritative guidance to prevent executive actions that infringe upon the judiciary’s domain.
Specific Ruling in the Instant Case and Mandate
Ricky Mengote was ordered to secure and file a motion for the withdrawal of his appeal within 30 days of notice. His conditional
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 103567)
Facts and Procedural History
- The accused-appellants, Francisco Salle Jr. and Ricky Mengote, together with others, were convicted by Branch 88 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for co-principals in the compound crime of murder and destructive arson.
- They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and jointly and severally ordered to pay indemnity of P50,000.00 to heirs of the victim.
- The accused timely filed notices of appeal, which the Supreme Court accepted on March 24, 1993.
- Subsequently, Salle filed a motion to withdraw his appeal after being granted a conditional pardon by the President on December 9, 1993, and was released from New Bilibid Prison on December 28, 1993.
- Mengote was also granted conditional pardon and released but did not file a motion to withdraw his appeal.
- This raised the issue of the enforceability of conditional pardons granted during the pendency of appeals.
Issue Presented
- Whether a conditional pardon granted by the President during the pendency of an appeal from a conviction is enforceable under the Constitution and Philippine law.
Relevant Constitutional and Legal Provisions
- Section 19, Article VII, 1987 Constitution: The President may grant reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures only after conviction by final judgment.
- Earlier constitutions and laws provided varying standards:
- Jones Law allowed pardons any time after offense commission, before or after conviction.
- 1935 Constitution permitted pardons only after conviction, even if appeal was pending.
- 1973 Constitution initially required final conviction, but 1981 amendments removed the finality limitation temporarily.
- The current constitutional provision restored the requirement of final conviction, signifying the necessity of judicial finality before the exercise of the pardoning power.
Factual Nuances Regarding Conditional Pardons in the Case
- Certified photocopies of the conditional pardons and certificates of release were submitted to the Court.
- The pardons stipulated release upon acceptance by the appellants, but there was no proof showing when or if acceptance occurred.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that acceptance implies acknowledgment of guilt and the appeal should thus be dismissed.
- The Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, or Pardon explained a standing agreement with human rights organizations like FLAG, whereby conditional pardons are recommended for politically motivated crimes, provided that the appellants withdraw their appeals.
- However, in Mengote’s case, incomplete records resulted in the Secretariat being unaware of a pending appeal; thus, the appeal was not withdrawn before the pardon recommendation.
Legal Analysis on Pardoning Power and Appeal Finality
- The Court traced the evolution of pardoning powers from the Jones Law, 1935, 1973 Constitutions, and the 1987 Constitution, emphasizing the present requirement of "conviction by final judgment."
- When the Constitution requires finality, no pardo