The Impermissibility of Granting Pardons During Pending Appeals

G.R. No. 116512, July 30, 1996

Imagine a scenario where an individual, convicted of a crime, seeks a pardon while simultaneously appealing their conviction. Can the government grant such a pardon? This case clarifies the Supreme Court’s stance on executive clemency and its limitations when an appeal is still pending. It highlights the importance of finality in judicial decisions before executive intervention.

Legal Context: Pardons and the Constitution

The power to grant pardons is an executive function enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. However, this power is not absolute. Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution states that the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. This provision ensures that the judiciary’s role in determining guilt is respected before the executive branch can intervene.

A pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It affects the private individual only and not the private rights of the offended party.

The key phrase is “after conviction by final judgment.” This implies that the judicial process must reach its conclusion, including any appeals, before a pardon can be validly granted. To illustrate, if a person is convicted of theft and immediately applies for a pardon, but also files an appeal, the pardon cannot be processed until the appeal is resolved. Only after the Supreme Court affirms the conviction (or the appeal is withdrawn) can the pardon be considered.

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need for a final judgment before parole or pardon can be extended. This is to prevent the executive branch from undermining the judicial process and to ensure that the courts have the final say in determining guilt or innocence.

Case Breakdown: People vs. Casido and Alcorin

This case involves William Casido and Franklin Alcorin, who, along with other accused, were found guilty of murder by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Dissatisfied with the RTC decision, Casido and Alcorin appealed to the Supreme Court.

While their appeal was pending, Casido and Alcorin filed an urgent motion to withdraw their appeal. Simultaneously, the Bureau of Corrections informed the Court that the accused-appellants had been released on conditional pardon. Further investigation revealed that these pardons were granted by the President upon the recommendation of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release and Pardon.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the conditional pardons were issued while the appeal was still pending. This prompted the Court to address the legality of granting pardons during the pendency of an appeal. The Court cited previous rulings emphasizing the necessity of a final judgment before parole or pardon could be extended.

The Court stated:

We now declare that the “conviction by final judgment” limitation under Section 19, Article VII of 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. Any application therefor, if one is made, should not be acted upon or the process toward its grant should not be begun unless the appeal is withdrawn.

Consequently, the Supreme Court declared the conditional pardons granted to Casido and Alcorin void. The Court ordered their re-arrest and recommitment to prison. The Court also required the officers of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon to explain why they should not be held in contempt of court for recommending the approval of the pardons despite the pending appeal.

Key events in the case included:

• Conviction by the Regional Trial Court
• Appeal filed by Casido and Alcorin
• Grant of conditional pardon while appeal was pending
• Supreme Court declares the pardon void
• Order for re-arrest and recommitment

Practical Implications: Ensuring Finality

This ruling has significant implications for the grant of executive clemency in the Philippines. It reinforces the principle that the judicial process must be respected, and the executive branch cannot circumvent the courts by granting pardons before a final judgment is reached.

For individuals seeking pardons, this case underscores the importance of understanding the legal requirements and procedural limitations. It is crucial to ensure that all appeals are resolved before applying for a pardon. For government agencies involved in processing pardon applications, this ruling serves as a reminder to strictly adhere to the constitutional requirements and to verify the status of any pending appeals.

This also highlights the importance of proper coordination between the judicial and executive branches. Agencies involved in processing pardon applications must ensure that they are fully aware of the status of any pending appeals before recommending or granting a pardon.

Key Lessons:

• A pardon cannot be granted while an appeal is pending.
• The judicial process must reach its conclusion before executive clemency can be considered.
• Government agencies must verify the status of appeals before processing pardon applications.

Hypothetical Example:

Imagine a company executive is convicted of fraud. He files an appeal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient. While the appeal is pending, he applies for a pardon, citing his contributions to the community. Under the ruling in People vs. Casido and Alcorin, his application for a pardon would be premature and cannot be acted upon until the appeal is resolved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can I apply for a pardon if I have a pending appeal?

A: No. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that a pardon cannot be granted while an appeal is pending. You must wait until your appeal is resolved before applying for a pardon.

Q: What happens if I am granted a pardon while my appeal is still pending?

A: The pardon would be considered void, and you may be subject to re-arrest and recommitment to prison.

Q: Who is responsible for ensuring that a pardon is not granted during a pending appeal?

A: The responsibility lies with the government agencies involved in processing pardon applications, as well as the individual seeking the pardon.

Q: What should I do if I believe I am eligible for a pardon?

A: Consult with a qualified legal professional to assess your eligibility and to ensure that all legal requirements are met.

Q: Does withdrawing my appeal automatically guarantee a pardon?

A: No. Withdrawing your appeal only removes the legal impediment to granting a pardon. The decision to grant a pardon still rests with the President, based on various factors and considerations.

Q: What is the role of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon?

A: This committee reviews applications for bail, release, and pardon and makes recommendations to the President.

Q: What is the difference between a full pardon and a conditional pardon?

A: A full pardon restores all civil rights and remits the remaining portion of the sentence. A conditional pardon is subject to certain conditions, such as good behavior or compliance with specific requirements.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and executive clemency. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.