ISSUE:WON Mengote’s conditional pardon is valid?RULING:No. Since pardon is given only to one whose conviction is final, pardon has noeffect until the person withdraws his appeal and thereby allows his conviction to be finaland Mengote has not filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. – “WHEREFORE, counselfor accused-appellant Ricky Mengote y Cuntado is hereby given thirty (30) days fromnotice hereof within which to secure from the latter the withdrawal of his appeal and tosubmit it to this Court. The conditional pardon granted the said appellant shall bedeemed to take effect only upon the grant of such withdrawal. In case of non-compliance with this Resolution, the Director of the Bureau of Correctionsmust exert every possible effort to take back into his custody the said appellant, forwhich purpose he may seek the assistance of the Philippine National Police or theNational Bureau of Investigation.”
VICENTE GARCIA vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.G.R. No. 75025 September 14, 1993Facts: 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 signifiesthat 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 JUSTICEG.R. No.132601FACTS:On January 4, 1999, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order stating the executionof petitioner Leo Echegaray (Leo is
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 103 pages?
President of the United States, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Joseph Estrada