FACTS:
Accused-appellant Ricky Mengote, together with his co-appellants, was convicted of murder and destructive arson and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnity. One of Mengote's co-appellants, Francisco Salle, Jr., filed a motion to withdraw his appeal, claiming that he signed it without the assistance of counsel, thinking it was a bureaucratic requirement for his early release from prison. Salle was granted a conditional pardon and released. On the other hand, Mengote did not file a motion to withdraw his appeal. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that by accepting the conditional pardon, the appellants admitted guilt and accepted their sentence, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.
The Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, or Pardon explained that they recommended the conditional pardon to Mengote based on a standing agreement with the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and other organizations. The issue in question is the enforceability of a pardon granted to an accused during the pendency of their appeal. In resolving this issue, the court analyzed the relevant Philippine laws on presidential pardons, beginning from the Jones Law and continuing up to the 1981 amendments to the 1973 Constitution.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the President can grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons after conviction by final judgment only.
-
Whether executive clemency can be granted during the pendency of an appeal.
-
Whether the grant of pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction by the trial court is prohibited by the "conviction by final judgment" limitation under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution.
-
Whether the acceptance of a pardon operates as an abandonment or waiver of the appeal.
-
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge in denying the petitioner's motion for inhibition.
-
Whether or not the issuance of the petition for the writ of certiorari is proper in this case.
RULING:
-
Yes, the President can only grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons after conviction by final judgment. The 1987 Constitution provides that the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment.
-
No, executive clemency cannot be granted during the pendency of an appeal. 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 for cases where the death penalty was imposed by the trial court), or when the accused applies for probation. Where the judgment of conviction is still pending appeal and has not yet attained finality, executive clemency may not be granted to the appellant.
-
The "conviction by final judgment" limitation under Section 19, Article VII of the 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. The appeal must be withdrawn before any application for pardon can be acted upon.
-
The acceptance of a pardon does not operate as an abandonment or waiver of the appeal.
-
The issue of whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for inhibition is a factual question as it involves the determination of the judge's impartiality. Thus, it is inappropriate and premature for the Supreme Court to conduct a review of the factual findings made by the trial court. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to raise this issue during the trial before the proper forum.
-
The issuance of the petition for the writ of certiorari is improper as the petitioner did not demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. In the absence of any showing that the respondent judge acted beyond his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the petition for the writ of certiorari cannot prosper.
PRINCIPLES:
-
The President's power to grant pardons, commutations, and reprieves is subject to limitations, including the requirement of conviction by final judgment.
-
The acceptance of a pardon may result in the abandonment of an appeal and render the conviction final.
-
The "conviction by final judgment" requirement was adopted to prevent the President from exercising executive power in derogation of the judicial power.
-
The exclusive authority of the appellate court must be fully respected and kept unimpaired, and the doctrine of separation of powers demands that the appellate court's jurisdiction be recognized.
-
The President has the unimpeded power to grant pardon even before a criminal case is heard, unless prevented by the Constitution. Only a change in the constitutional provision can alter this rule.
-
The "conviction by final judgment" limitation under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution prohibits the grant of pardon to an accused during the pendency of their appeal.
-
Proof that the accused has not appealed from their conviction or has withdrawn their appeal is required before a pardon can be granted.
-
The agencies or instrumentalities of the government must not solely rely on a pardon as a basis for the release of the accused from confinement.
-
Failure to comply with the requirement to withdraw the appeal before the grant of a pardon renders those responsible for the release administratively liable.
-
Conditional pardons granted after 31 January 1995 during the pendency of the appeal shall only take effect upon the withdrawal of the appeal.
-
The determination of a judge's impartiality is a factual question that should be raised during the trial before the proper forum.
-
The writ of certiorari can only be issued when a tribunal, board, or officer exercises its jurisdiction in a manner that amounts to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.