Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    People vs. Salle

    Uploaded by

    Se'f Benitez
    This case involved two individuals, Salle and Mengote, who were convicted of murder and arson and appealed their case to the Supreme Court. While their appeal was pending, both were granted conditional pardons by the President. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these conditional pardons were enforceable while the appeal was still pending. The Court ultimately ruled that under the Constitution, pardons can only be granted after a conviction becomes final, which does not occur until any appeals are withdrawn or finalized. Therefore, the conditional pardons granted to Salle and Mengote before resolving their appeal were not enforceable. Mengote's counsel was given 30 days to have Mengote withdraw his appeal in order for the conditional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Salle

    Uploaded by

    Se'f Benitez
    67 views3 pages
    This case involved two individuals, Salle and Mengote, who were convicted of murder and arson and appealed their case to the Supreme Court. While their appeal was pending, both were granted conditional pardons by the President. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these conditional pardons were enforceable while the appeal was still pending. The Court ultimately ruled that under the Constitution, pardons can only be granted after a conviction becomes final, which does not occur until any appeals are withdrawn or finalized. Therefore, the conditional pardons granted to Salle and Mengote before resolving their appeal were not enforceable. Mengote's counsel was given 30 days to have Mengote withdraw his appeal in order for the conditional

    Original Title

    People vs. Salle.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved two individuals, Salle and Mengote, who were convicted of murder and arson and appealed their case to the Supreme Court. While their appeal was pending, both were granted conditional pardons by the President. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these conditional pardons were enforceable while the appeal was still pending. The Court ultimately ruled that under the Constitution, pardons can only be granted after a conviction becomes final, which does not occur until any appeals are withdrawn or finalized. Therefore, the conditional pardons granted to Salle and Mengote before resolving their appeal were not enforceable. Mengote's counsel was given 30 days to have Mengote withdraw his appeal in order for the conditional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views3 pages

    People vs. Salle

    Uploaded by

    Se'f Benitez
    This case involved two individuals, Salle and Mengote, who were convicted of murder and arson and appealed their case to the Supreme Court. While their appeal was pending, both were granted conditional pardons by the President. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these conditional pardons were enforceable while the appeal was still pending. The Court ultimately ruled that under the Constitution, pardons can only be granted after a conviction becomes final, which does not occur until any appeals are withdrawn or finalized. Therefore, the conditional pardons granted to Salle and Mengote before resolving their appeal were not enforceable. Mengote's counsel was given 30 days to have Mengote withdraw his appeal in order for the conditional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    People vs.

    Salle

    Facts: 

    In 1991, Salle and Mengote were convicted of the compound crime of murder and
    destructive arson before the RTC of Quezon City. Salle and Mengote appealed their
    case to SC on March 24, 1993.

    In 1994, Salle filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. The Court required Salle's
    counsel, Atty. Ida May La'o of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) to verify the
    voluntariness of the motion.

    Atty. La'o manifested that Salle signed the motion without the assistance of counsel on
    his misimpression that the motion was necessary for his early release from the New
    Bilibid Prison following the grant of a conditional pardon by the President on December
    9, 1993. She also stated that Mengote was also granted conditional pardon and that he
    immediately left for his province without consulting her. She prayed that the Court grant
    Salle's motion to withdraw his appeal.

    On March 23, 1994, the Court granted Salle's motion. Mengote, however, did not file a
    motion to withdraw appeal.

    After taking into consideration Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution which provides
    that the President may, except in cases of impeachment or as otherwise provided in the
    Constitution, grant pardon after conviction by final judgment, the Court required (1) the
    Solicitor General and the counsel for accused-appellants to submit their memoranda on
    the issue of the enforceability of the conditional pardon and (2) the Presidential
    Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release or Pardon to inform the Court why it
    recommended to the President the grant of the conditional pardon despite the pendency
    of the appeal.

    In its Memorandum, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains that the conditional
    pardon granted to appellant Mengote is unenforceable because the judgment of
    conviction is not yet final in view of the pendency in this Court of his appeal.
    On the other hand, the FLAG, through Atty. La'o, submits that the conditional pardon
    extended to Mengote is valid and enforceable. Citing Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., it
    argues that although Mengote did not file a motion to withdraw the appeal, he was
    deemed to have abandoned the appeal by his acceptance of the conditional pardon
    which resulted in the finality of his conviction.

    Issue: 

    Whether or not a pardon granted to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from
    a judgment of conviction by the trial court is enforceable.

    Held: 

    Section 19, Article VII thereof reads as follows:


    Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the
    President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
    forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.

    He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all
    the Members of the Congress.

    Where the pardoning power is subject to the limitation of conviction, it may be exercised
    at any time after conviction even if the judgment is on appeal. It is, of course, entirely
    different where the requirement is " final conviction," as was mandated in the original
    provision of Section 14, Article IX of the 1973 Constitution, or "conviction by final
    judgment," as presently prescribed in Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. In
    such a case, no pardon may be extended before a judgment of conviction becomes
    final.

    A judgment of conviction becomes final (a) when no appeal is seasonably perfected, (b)
    when the accused commences to serve the sentence, (c) when the right to appeal is
    expressly waived in writing, except where the death penalty was imposed by the trial
    court, and (d) when the accused applies for probation, thereby waiving his right to
    appeal. 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 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. Accordingly, the agencies or
    instrumentalities of the Government concerned must require proof from the accused
    that he has not appealed from his conviction or that he has withdrawn his appeal. Such
    proof may be in the form of a certification issued by the trial court or the appellate court,
    as the case may be. 

    The acceptance of the pardon shall not operate as an abandonment or waiver of the
    appeal, and the release of an accused by virtue of a pardon, commutation of sentence,
    or parole before the withdrawal of an appeal shall render those responsible therefor
    administratively liable. Accordingly, those in custody of the accused must not solely rely
    on the pardon as a basis for the release of the accused from confinement.

    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. (People vs. Francisco Salle, Jr. and
    Ricky Mengote, G.R. No. 103567, December 4, 1995)

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy