Issue won mengotes conditional pardon is valid ruling

ISSUE:
WON Mengote’s conditional pardon is valid?
RULING:
No. Since pardon is given only to one whose conviction is final, pardon has no
effect until the person withdraws his appeal and thereby allows his conviction to be final
and Mengote has not filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. – “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.”

VICENTE GARCIA vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
G.R. No. 75025 September 14, 1993
Facts:
Herein petitioner Vicente Garcia was employed as a Supervising lineman at the Bureau of
Telecommunications. He was accused of stealing some materials in their company. Thus, public
respondents filed a criminal case against him for qualified theft before a court and on the same
ground respondents also filed an administrative case in which petitioner was found guilty and
was later dismissed from the service. With respect to the criminal offense, petitioner was
acquitted by the court due to insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner was then reinstated from his
work and is now claiming before the COA for his back salaries from the time of his dismissal up
to present. But COA on the other hand reluctantly denied his pleadings. Meanwhile, petitioner
was extended an executive clemency (absolute pardon) by the President. Still, respondent COA
strongly refused to give due course to petitioners claim.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is entitled to the payment of back wages after having been
reinstated pursuant to the grant of executive clemency.
Ruling: No. The Court ruled initially by explaining the mandate of Sec 19 Article VII of the
Constitution and further articulates that the bestowal of executive clemency on petitioner in
effect completely obliterated the adverse effects of the administrative decision which found him
guilty of dishonesty and ordered his separation from the service. This can be inferred from the
executive clemency itself exculpating petitioner from the administrative charge and thereby
directing his reinstatement, which is rendered automatic by the grant of the pardon. This signifies
that petitioner need no longer apply to be reinstated to his former employment; he is restored to
his office ipso facto upon the issuance of the clemency.

ECHERAGAY vs SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
G.R. No. 132601
FACTS:On January 4, 1999, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order stating
the executionof petitioner Leo Echegaray (Leo is