Executive Clemency and Pending Appeals: When Can a Pardon Be Granted?

The power to pardon is one of the most significant privileges granted to the Philippine President under the Constitution. Yet this power has clear limits, particularly when a convicted person has appealed their case. In People v. Bacang (G.R. No. 116512, July 30, 1996), the Supreme Court addressed a recurring problem: pardons being granted to accused persons while their appeals were still pending before the courts.

The case involved William Casido and Franklin Alcorin, who were convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They appealed to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, both men were granted conditional pardons by the President and released from prison on January 25, 1996.

The Issue Before the Court

The accused-appellants filed a motion to withdraw their appeal, apparently relying on the pardons they had received. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these pardons were valid, given that they were issued while the appeals were still pending.

The Court traced the history of this issue through several prior decisions. In an earlier resolution, the Court had already declared that processing pardon applications despite pending appeals was a violation of law. In another case, the Court emphasized that a final judgment was necessary before parole or pardon could be extended.

The Constitutional Basis

The Court anchored its ruling on Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, which grants the President the power to pardon. The provision states that the President cannot grant pardon in cases of impeachment, and crucially, the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons can only be exercised after conviction by final judgment.

The Court clarified that the phrase "conviction by final judgment" means the conviction must be final before a pardon can be granted. A conviction is not final while an appeal is pending. The exact text of Section 19, Article VII is not reproduced in the library materials available, but the Court's interpretation of this provision is clear from the decision.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the motion to withdraw the appeal and declared the conditional pardons void. The Court ordered the Bureau of Corrections to re-arrest Casido and Alcorin and return them to the New Bilibid Prisons within sixty days.

The Court also required the officers of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for acting on the pardon applications despite the pending appeals.

In a prior resolution which the Court reiterated, it declared that the constitutional limitation 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. The Court further stated that government agencies must require proof that the accused has not appealed or has withdrawn the appeal before processing any pardon application.

Practical Takeaways

• Pardons require final judgment. A pardon, whether full or conditional, cannot be granted while an appeal is pending. The conviction must be final.
• Accepting a pardon does not waive an appeal. The Court explicitly stated that accepting a pardon does not operate as an abandonment or waiver of the appeal.
• Government agencies must verify. Agencies processing pardon applications must require certification from the trial or appellate court that no appeal is pending or that the appeal has been withdrawn.
• Unauthorized releases have consequences. Those responsible for releasing an accused based on a void pardon may face administrative liability.
• Withdrawing an appeal is the proper path. If an accused wishes to receive a pardon, they must first formally withdraw their appeal.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.