G.R. No. 103567 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO SALLE, JR. Y GERCILLA @ “KA NONOY,” RICKY MENGOTE Y CUNTADO @ “KA RICKY/KA LIZA/KA JUN,” and TEN JOHN DOES, accused.
FRANCISCO SALLE, JR., Y GERCILLA and RICKY MENGOTE Y CUNTADO, accused-appellants.
DAVIDE, JR., J.
Facts
On November 18, 1991, the RTC of Quezon City found the accused-appellants guilty of the compound crime of murder and destructive arson. They both filed Notice of Appeal which was accepted by the Supreme Court on March 24, 1993. On January 6, 1994, Salle withdrew his appeal. His counsel, member of FLAG (Free Legal Assistance Group) verified that he withdrew such appeal in light of the conditional pardon extended by the President. The Court granted Salle’s motion to withdraw appeal. On the other hand, appellant Mengote has not filed a motion to withdraw his appeal at the time of this case.
Issue
Was the grant of a conditional pardon enforceable as to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from a judgment of conviction by the trial court?
Ruling and Discussion
No. The grant of a conditional pardon is not enforceable as to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from a judgment of conviction by the trial court.
The reason the Constitutional Commission adopted the conviction by final judgment requirement on the pardoning power, was to prevent the President from exercising executive power in derogation of the judicial power.
An appeal brings the entire case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appellate court. A becoming regard for the doctrine of separation of powers demands that such exclusive authority of the appellate court be fully respected and kept unimpaired. Had not the present Constitution adopted the conviction by final judgment limitation, the President could, at any time, and even without the knowledge of the court, extend executive clemency to any one whom he, in good faith or otherwise, believes to merit presidential mercy.
A judgment of conviction becomes final:
- when no appeal is seasonably perfected,
- when the accused commences to serve the sentence,
- when the right to appeal is expressly waived in writing, except where the death penalty was imposed by the trial court, and
- when the accused applies for probation, thereby waiving his right to appeal.
Under Art. VII, Sec. 19 of the 1987 Constitution, no pardon may be extended before a judgment of conviction becomes final. Where the judgment of conviction is still pending appeal and has not yet therefore attained finality, as in the instant case, executive clemency may not yet be granted to the appellant.
The conviction by final judgment limitation under the present Constitution prohibits the grant of pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction by the trial court.
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, counsel for accused-appellant Ricky Mengote y Cuntado is hereby given thirty (30) days from notice hereof within which to secure from the latter the withdrawal of his appeal and to submit it to this Court. The conditional pardon granted the said appellant shall be deemed to take effect only upon the grant of such withdrawal. In case of non-compliance with this Resolution, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections must exert every possible effort to take back into his custody the said appellant, for which purpose he may seek the assistance of the Philippine National Police or the National Bureau of Investigation.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the President, the Department of Justice, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, or Pardon.
SO ORDERED.