People vs Salle Case Digest

PEOPLE VS SALLE, JR. FACTS: Francisco Salle, Jr. and Ricky Mengote were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and each is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay an indemnity. The appellants seasonably filed their Notice of Appeal. On 24 March 1993, the Court accepted the appeal. On 6 January 1994, however, appellant Francisco Salle, Jr. filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. They were granted a conditional pardon that with their acceptance of the conditional pardon, the appellants will be released from confinement, the appellants impliedly admitted their guilt and accepted their sentence, and hence, the appeal should be dismissed. They were discharged from the New Bilibid Prison on 28 December 1993. Atty. La’o further informed the Court that appellant Ricky Mengote left for his province without consulting her. She then prays that the Court grant Salle's motion to withdraw his appeal and consider it withdrawn upon his acceptance of the conditional pardon. Mengote has not filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not 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.”

DRILON VS CA FACTS: Raul Paredes and Rodolfo Ganzon were charged with double murder; the military promulgated a decision acquitting Raul Paredes but sentencing Rodolfo Ganzon to life imprisonment. Paredes was thereupon released from custody. President Marcos gave a conditional pardon of Ganzon's release after six years of imprisonment; although as a condition, Ganzon shall remain under house arrest but apparently, he was free man, he was free to move in and out of his residence. ISSUE: Whether or not Ganzon’s sentence effectively commuted to six years? RULING: Yes. Commutation does not have to be in any specific form. The fact that he was released after six years and the fact that the house arrest is not a penalty leads to the conclusion that the penalty had been shortened. – The Court is of the opinion that if Ganzon's sentence had been commuted, he has therefore served his sentence and if he has served his sentence fully, he can no longer be reinvestigated, or be made to "complete the service of his sentence." He was supposed to have remained under house arrest, not as a continuation of his sentence, but pursuant to Marcos' vast arrest and commitment powers during martial rule.

TORRES VS GONZALES FACTS: In 1979, Wilfredo S. Torres was convicted of the crime of estafa (two counts) and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term and to pay an indemnity. On 18 April 1979, a conditional pardon was granted by the President of the Philippines on condition that petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. Should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law." Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from confinement. On 4 June 1986, the respondent Minister of Justice wrote to the President of the Philippines informing her of the Resolution of the Board recommending cancellation of the conditional pardon previously granted to petitioner who charged with 20 counts of estafa. On 8 September 1986, the President cancelled the conditional pardon of the petitioner. On 10 October 1986, the respondent Minister of Justice issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and Recommitment against petitioner. Torres claims that he did not violate his conditional pardon. He was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. But the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code. The petition is dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the President determines whether the condition has been violated? 2) Whether or not Torres violated the condition of his pardon? RULING: 1) Yes, only the President alone. The current doctrine holds that, by virtue of Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, the President may in his judgment determine whether the condition of the pardon has been violated. That choice is an exercise of the President's executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. The convict’s acceptance of the conditional pardon carries with it acceptance of the President’s authority. 2) No. Even though Torres is facing a long list of criminal charges, as many as such charges may be, none of them so far has resulted in a final conviction, without which he cannot be recommitted under the condition of his pardon. An allegation merely accuses the defendant of a crime: it is the conviction that makes him a criminal. In other words, a person is considered to have committed a crime only if he is convicted thereof, and this is done not by his accuser but by the judge. A "judicial pronouncement to the effect that he has committed a crime" is necessary before he could properly be adjudged as having violated his conditional parole.