Except in cases of
impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may
grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures,
after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence
of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. (Art. VII, Sec. 19, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
● Exercise by the
President: Discretionary; may not be
controlled by the legislature or reversed by the courts unless there is
violation of the Constitution.
Definitions
1. Pardon — an act of grace which exempts
the individual on whom it is bestowed from punishment which the law inflicts
for a crime he has committed.
a.
Plenary or partial
b.
Absolute or conditional
Conditional
pardon — is in the nature of a contract between the sovereign power or the
Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release
the latter subject to the condition that if he does not comply with the terms
of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion
of the sentence or an additional one.
2.
Commutation — reduction
or mitigation of penalty
3.
Reprieve — postponement of sentence
or stay of execution
4.
Parole — release from
imprisonment, but without full restoration of liberty, as parolee is in custody
of the law although not in confinement
5.
Amnesty — act of grace, concurred
in by the Legislature, usually extended to groups of persons who committed
political offenses, which puts into oblivion the offense itself.
Distinction
between Pardon and Amnesty
Amnesty
|
Pardon
|
1.
granted for political offenses
|
1.
granted for any offense
|
2. granted to
classes of persons or communities
|
2. granted
to individuals
|
3.
may be granted at any time
|
3.
granted after final conviction
|
4.
need not be accepted
|
4.
must be accepted
|
5. requires the
concurrence of congress
|
5. does not need the
concurrence of congress
|
6. public act which
the court may take judicial notice
|
6. private act
which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned
|
7. looks backward
and puts the offense into oblivion
|
7. looks forward
and relieves the offender from the consequences of his offense
|
Limitations
on the exercise of the pardoning power:
1. Cannot
be granted in cases of impeachment;
2.
Cannot be granted in violations of election laws without favorable recommendations
of the COMELEC;
3. Can be granted only after
conviction by final judgment (except amnesty);
4. Cannot be granted in cases of
legislative contempt or civil contempt;
5. Cannot absolve convict of civil
liability;
6. Cannot restore public offices
forfeited.
Cases:
● Person released under an amnesty proclamation
stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. Par. 3,
Art. 89, Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally
extinguished by amnesty, the penalty and all its effects are thus extinguished
(People v. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, September 29, 2000)
● To avail of an amnesty proclamation, one must
admit his guilt of the offense covered by the proclamation (Vera vs. People, 7
SCRA 152)
● Conditional pardon is in the nature of a
contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and
the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release the latter subject to the
condition that if he does not comply with the terms
of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an
additional one. By the pardonee’s consent to the terms stipulated in the
contract, the pardonee has placed himself under the supervision of the Chief
Executive or his delegate who is duty bound to see to it that the pardonee
complies with the conditions of the pardon.
Under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative
Code, the Chief Executive is authorized to order "the arrest and
re-incarceration of any such person who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply
with the condition, or conditions of his pardon, parole, or suspension of sentence."
It is now a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that this exercise of
presidential judgment is beyond judicial scrutiny. The determination of the
violation of the conditional pardon rests exclusively in the sound judgment of
the Chief Executive, and the pardonee, having consented to place his liberty on
conditional pardon upon the judgment of the power that has granted it, cannot
invoke the aid of the courts, however erroneous the findings may be upon which
his recommitment was ordered. (In
Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Wilfredo S. Sumulong, G.R. No. 122338, December
29, 1995)
● In Llamas vs. Orbos, pardon is available also to
one found guilty of administrative offense. Section 19 of Article VII did not
distinguish between a criminal and administrative offense.
● Effect of
grant of pardon: In the case of Monsanto
vs. Factoran (170 SCRA 190 (1989), the accused was convicted of malversation thru falsification of
official documents. She was granted absolute pardon. She demanded for
reinstatement and back salaries. The SC held that pardon may mean forgiveness
but not forgetfulness. What was remitted is the penalty and not the fact of
one’s guilt. In the eyes of law, she was still a convict.
Exceptions:
1. Unless the grant expressly so provides for her
reinstatement and payment of back salaries.
2. If the grant of pardon was based on the fact of
the innocence of the one charged of the crime.
● Section
19, Article VII is simply the source of power of the President to grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final
judgment. This provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power
of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after the finality. In
truth, an accused that has been convicted by final judgment still possesses
collateral rights and these rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts.
For instance, a death convict who becomes insane after his final conviction
cannot be executed while in the state of insanity. (See Article 79 of the
Revised Penal Code)
Article 81 of the Revised Penal code, as amended, which provides that
the death sentence shall be carried out without prejudice to the exercise by
the President of his executive clemency powers at all times. For instance, the
President cannot grant reprieve, i.e., postpone the execution of a sentence to
a day certain in the absence of a precise date to reckon with. The exercise of
such clemency power, at this time, might even work to the prejudice of the
convict and defeat the purpose of the Constitution, and the applicable statute
as when the date of execution set by the President would be earlier than that
designated by court. (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, 1999)
People vs. Casido, G.R. 116512, March 7, 1997
People v. Nacional, G.R. No. 11294,
September 7, 1995
Sabello vs. DECS, 180 SCRA 623 (1989)
Llamas v. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844 (1991)
Cristobal vs. Labrador, 71 Phil. 34 (1941)
Pelobello vs. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 27 (1987)
In Re Lontok, 43 Phil 293 (1923)
Garcia vs. Chairman, COA G.R. 75025,
September 14, 1993
Torres v. Gonzales, 152
SCRA 273 (1987)
0
Comments
