Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

People vs. Casido G.R. No.

116512, March 7, 1997 Facts: In an effort to seek their release at the soonest possible time, accused-appellants William Casido and Franklin Alcorin applied for pardon before the Presidential Committee on the Grant of Bail, Release or Pardon (PCGBRP , as !ell as for amnest" before the #ational Amnest" Commission (#AC $ %he PCGBRP !as constituted in line !ith the confidence-buildin& measures of the &o'ernment$ %hereafter, accused-appellants !ere &ranted conditional pardon$ But the Court ruled in resolution that the conditional pardon &ranted to accused-appellants is 'oid for ha'in& been e(tended durin& the pendenc" of their appeal$ Prior to the resolution, the #AC fa'orabl" acted on the applications for amnest" of accused-appellants$

Iss e: Whether









!eld: %he release of accused-appellants !as 'alid solel" on the &round of the amnest" &ranted them and not b" the pardon$

Pardon is &ranted b" the Chief )(ecuti'e and as such it is a pri'ate act !hich must be pleaded and pro'ed b" the person pardoned because the courts take no notice thereof* !hile amnest" b" the Proclamationof the Chief )(ecuti'e !ith the concurrence of Con&ress, and it is a public act of !hich the courts should take +udicial notice$ Pardon is &ranted to one after con'iction* !hile amnest" is to classes of persons or communities !ho ma" be &uilt" of political offenses, &enerall" before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after con'iction$ Pardon looks for!ard and relie'es the offender from the conse,uences of an offense of !hich he has been con'icted, that is, it abolishes or for&i'es the punishment, and for that reason it does not !ork the restoration of the ri&hts to hold public office, or the ri&ht of suffra&e, unless such ri&hts be e(pressl" restored b" the terms of the pardon, and it in no case e(empts the culprit from the pa"ment of the ci'il indemnit" imposed upon him b" the sentence$ While amnest" looks back!ard and abolishes and puts into obli'ion the offense itself, it so o'erlooks and obliterates the offense !ith !hich he is char&ed that the person released b" amnest" stands before the la! precisel" as thou&h he had committed no offense$

While the pardon in this case !as 'oid for ha'in& been e(tended durin& the pendenc" of the appeal or before con'iction b" final +ud&ment and, therefore, in 'iolation of the first para&raph of -ec$ ./, Art$ 0II of the Constitution, the &rant of amnest", for !hich accused-appellants 'oluntaril" applied under Proclamation #o$ 123 !as 'alid$ %his Proclamation !as concurred in b" both 4ouses of Con&ress$

People o" the Philippi#es vs $e#edicto %ose FACTS: 5ose !as char&ed for 'iolatin& Act 67 in ./22$ Act 67 !as an act of the #at8l Assembl" of RP !hile the 5apanese !ere still occup"in& the countr"$ After ser'in& 6 months or in April ./22, 5ose !as &ranted a conditional pardon 9 the simple condition !as for him not to 'iolate an" other Penal :a!s of RP$ :ater he committed a crime of ,ualified theft$ %he Fiscal then !ent on to file an additional char&e a&ainst 5ose for 'iolatin& the conditions of the pardon &ranted him$ 5ose ar&ued that he did not 'iolate the pardon conditions at all because there is no pardon at all$ %he pardon &ranted him is inoperati'e because the la! he 'iolated before !as a political la! !hich !as abro&ated !hen the ;- arm" took o'er the countr" as proclaimed b" <acArthur in =ct ./22$ I&&'(: Whether the defendant can no! be prosecuted for ha'in& alle&edl" 'iolated the conditional pardon &ranted b" the President of the so-called Republic of the Philippines$ !()*: %he -C held that 5ose cannot be prosecuted criminall" for a 'iolation of the conditional pardon &ranted b" the President of the so-called RP (durin& the 5ap =ccupation , for the follo!in& reasons> Because, !ithout necessit" of discussin& and determinin& the intrinsic 'alidit" of the conditional pardon, as an act done b" the President of the so-called RP, after the restoration of the Common!ealth Go'ernment, no elaborate ar&ument is re,uired to sho! that the effecti'it" of a conditional pardon depends on that of the sentence !hich inflicts upon a defendant the punishment inflicted b" the sentence ceases to be of an" effect in so far as the indi'idual upon !hom it is besto!ed is concerned, for the latter cannot be re,uired to ser'e a 'oid sentence of penalt" imposed on him, e'en !ithout such pardon$

P(+P)( ,& FR-NCI&C+ &-))( %R .here the / d01e#t o" co#victio# is still pe#di#0 appeal a#d has #ot 2et there"ore attai#ed "i#alit2, as i# the i#sta#t case, e3ec tive cle1e#c2 1a2 #ot 2et 4e 0ra#ted to the appella#t. 5he accepta#ce o" the pardo# shall #ot operate as a#a4a#do#1e#t or 6aiver o" the appeal.

Facts: =n #o'ember .//., Francisco -alle, 5r$ and Rick" <en&ote !ere con'icted of the compound crime of murder and destructi'e arson before the R%C of ?ue@on Cit"$ -alle and <en&ote filed their #otice of Appeal !hich !as accepted b" the -upreme Court on <arch A2, .//1$ In .//2, -alle filed an ;r&ent <otion to Withdra! Appeal$ %he Court re,uired -alleBs counsel, Att"$ Ida <a" :aBo of the Free :e&al Assistance Group (F:AG to 'erif" the 'oluntariness of the motion$ Att"$ :aBo manifested that -alle si&ned the motion !ithout the assistance of counsel on his misimpression that the motion !as necessar" for his earl" releasefrom the #e! Bilibid Prison follo!in& the &rant of a conditional pardon b" the President on Cecember /, .//1$ -he also stated that <en&ote !as also &ranted conditional pardon and that he immediatel" left for his pro'ince !ithout consultin& her$ -he pra"ed that the Court &rant -alleBs motion to !ithdra! his appeal$ =n <arch A1, .//2, the Court &ranted -alleBs motion$ After takin& into consideration -ection ./, Article 0II of the Constitution !hich pro'ides that the President ma", e(cept in cases of impeachment or as other!ise pro'ided in the Constitution, &rant pardon after conviction by final judgment, the Court re,uired (. the -olicitor General and the counsel for accused-appellants to submit their memoranda on the issue of the enforceabilit" of the conditional pardon and (A the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release or

Pardon to inform the Court !h" it recommended to the President the &rant of the conditional pardon despite the pendenc" of the appeal$ In its <emorandum, the =ffice of the -olicitor General maintains that the conditional pardon &ranted to appellant <en&ote is unenforceable because the +ud&ment of con'iction is not "et final in 'ie! of the pendenc" in this Court of his appeal$ =n the other hand, the F:AG, throu&h Att"$ :aBo, submits that the conditional pardon e(tended to <en&ote is 'alid and enforceable$ Citin& Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr$, it ar&ues that althou&h <en&ote did not file a motion to !ithdra! the appeal, he !as deemed to ha'e abandoned the appeal b" his acceptance of the conditional pardon !hich resulted in the finalit" of his con'iction$ Iss e: Whether or not a pardon &ranted to an accused durin& the pendenc" of his appeal from a +ud&ment of con'iction b" the trial court is enforceable$ !eld: -ection ./, Article 0II thereof reads as follo!s> !ce"t in cases of im"eac#ment, or as ot#er$ise "rovided in t#is Constitution, t#e %resident may grant re"rieves, commutations, and "ardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. &e s#all also #ave t#e "o$er to grant amnesty $it# t#e concurrence of a majority of all t#e Members of t#e Congress.' Where the pardonin& po!er is sub+ect to the limitation of conviction, it ma" be e(ercised at any time after conviction e'en if the +ud&ment is on appeal$ It is, of course, entirel" different !here the re,uirement is D final conviction, D as !as mandated in the ori&inal pro'ision of -ection .2, Article IE of the ./31 Constitution, or Dconviction by final judgment,D as presentl" prescribed in -ection ./, Article 0II of the ./F3 Constitution$ In such a case, no pardon ma" be e(tended before a +ud&ment of con'iction becomes final$

A +ud&ment of con'iction becomes final (a !hen no appeal is seasonabl" perfected, (b !hen the accused commences to ser'e the sentence, (c !hen the ri&ht to appeal is e(pressl" !ai'ed in !ritin&, e(cept !here the death penalt"!as imposed b" the trial court, and (d !hen the accused applies for probation, thereb" !ai'in& his ri&ht to appeal$ Where the +ud&ment of con'iction is still pendin& appeal and has not "et therefore attained finalit", as in the instant case, e(ecuti'e clemenc" ma" not "et be &ranted to the appellant$ %he Dcon'iction b" final +ud&mentD limitation under -ection ./, Article 0II of the present Constitution prohibits the &rant of pardon, !hether full or conditional, to an accused durin& the pendenc" of his appeal from his con'iction b" the trial court$ An" application therefor, if one is made, should not be acted upon or the process to!ard its &rant should not be be&un unless the appeal is !ithdra!n$ Accordin&l", the a&encies or instrumentalities of the Go'ernment concerned must re,uire proof from the accused that he has not appealed from his con'iction or that he has !ithdra!n his appeal$ -uch proof ma" be in the form of a certification issued b" the trial court or the appellate court, as the case ma" be$ %he acceptance of the pardon shall not operate as an abandonment or !ai'er of the appeal, and the release of an accused b" 'irtue of a pardon, commutation of sentence, or parole before the !ithdra!al of an appeal shall render those responsible therefor administrati'el" liable$ Accordin&l", those in custod" of the accused must not solel" rel" on the pardon as a basis for the release of the accused from confinement$ .!(R(F+R(, counsel for accused-appellant Rick" <en&ote " Cuntado is hereb" &i'en thirt" (1G da"s from notice hereof !ithin !hich to secure from the latter the !ithdra!al of his appeal and to submit it to this Court$ %he conditional pardon &ranted the said appellant shall be deemed to take effect onl" upon the &rant of such !ithdra!al$ In case of non-compliance !ith this Resolution, the Cirector of the Bureau of Corrections must e(ert e'er" possible effort to take back into his custod" the said appellant, for !hich purpose he ma" seek the assistance of the Philippine #ational Police or the #ational Bureau of In'esti&ation$ (People vs. Francisco Salle, Jr. and Ricky Mengote, G.R. No. 103 !", #ece$%er &, 1''

&alvacio# Mo#sa#to vs *ep t2 (3ec &ec F l0e#cio Factora#

FAC%-> <onsanto !as the Asst %reasurer of Calba"u& Cit"$ -he !as char&ed for the crime of )stafa throu&h Falsification of Public Cocuments$ -he !as found &uilt" and !as sentenced to +ail$ -he !as ho!e'er &ranted pardon b" <arcos$ -he then !rote a letter to the <inister of Finance for her to be reinstated to her former position since it !as still 'acant$ -he !as also re,uestin& for back pa"s$ %he <inister of Finance referred the issue to the =ffice of the President and Factoran denied <onsanto8s re,uest a'errin& that <onsanto must first seek appointment and that the pardon does not reinstate her former position$ Also, <onsanto a'ers that b" reason of the pardon, she should no lon&er be compelled to ans!er for the ci'il liabilities brou&ht about b" her acts$ I&&'(: Whether or not <onsanto should be reinstated to her former post$ !()*: A pardon looks to the future$ It is not retrospecti'e$ It makes no amends for the past$ It affords no relief for !hat has been suffered b" the offender$ It does not impose upon the &o'ernment an" obli&ation to make reparation for !hat has been suffered$ H-ince the offense has been established b" +udicial proceedin&s, that !hich has been done or suffered !hile the" !ere in force is presumed to ha'e been ri&htfull" done and +ustl" suffered, and no satisfaction for it can be re,uired$I %his !ould e(plain !h" petitioner, thou&h pardoned, cannot be entitled to recei'e backpa" for lost earnin&s and benefits$ =n the other hand, ci'il liabilit" arisin& from crime is &o'erned b" the RPC$ It subsists not!ithstandin& ser'ice of sentence, or for an" reason the sentence is not ser'ed b" pardon, amnest" or commutation of sentence$ Petitioner8s ci'il liabilit" ma" onl" be e(tin&uished b" the same causes reco&ni@ed in the Ci'il Code, namel"> pa"ment, loss of the thin& due, remission of the debt, mer&er of the ri&hts of creditor and debtor, compensation and no'ation$

$(N%-MIN P-NG-N 's$ !+N. )+'R*(& F. G-5$-)I5( G.R. No. 171718%a# ar2 21, 2995 Facts: =n -eptember .6, ./F3, the petitioner !as con'icted of the offense char&ed and !as sentenced to ser'e a penalt" of t!o months and one da" of arresto mayor.=n appeal, the Re&ional %rial Court, on =ctober A2, ./FF,affirmed in toto the decision of the <unicipal %rial Court$ Petitioner ne'er &ot to ser'e his sentence and hid for about nine "ears$Pursuant to the order of arrest, on 5anuar" AG, AGGG, the petitioner !as apprehended and detained at the <abalacat Cetention Cell$ =n 5anuar" A2, AGGG, petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of 4abeas Corpus at theRe&ional %rial Court of An&eles Cit"$ 4e impleaded as respondent the Actin& Chief of Police of <abalacat, Pampan&a$ Petitioner contended that his arrest !as ille&al and un+ustified on the &rounds that>(a the strai&ht penalt" of t!o months and one da" of arresto ma"or prescribes in fi'e "ears under #o$ 1,Article /1 Jof theK Re'ised Penal Code, and(b ha'in& been able to continuousl" e'ade ser'ice of sentence for almost nine "ears, his criminal liabilit" has lon& been totall" e(tin&uished under #o$ 6, Article F/ of the Re'ised Penal Code$%he petition for a !rit of habeas corpus !as denied as there !as no e'asion of the ser'ice of the sentence in this case, because such e'asion presupposes escapin& durin& the ser'ice of the sentence consistin& in depri'ation of libert"$ Iss e: When does the prescription of penalties be&in to runL R li#0: Petitioner is ordered released effecti'e immediatel" for ha'in& full" ser'ed his sentence unless he is detained for another offense or char&e$%he period of prescription of penalties M the succeedin& Article /1 pro'ides M Dshall commence to run from the date !hen the culprit should e'ade the ser'ice of his sentenceD$ In Article .73 of the Re'ised Penal Code discussed on ho! the e'asion of ser'ice of sentence !as perfected and thus it !as stated there as such that* %he penalt" of "rision correccional in its medium and ma(imum periods shall be imposed upon an" con'ict !ho shall e'ade ser'ice of his sentence b" escapin& durin& the term of his imprisonment b" reason of final +ud&ment$ %o consider properl" the meanin& of e'asion ser'ice of sentence, its elements must be present the are> (. the offender is a con'ict b" final +ud&ment* (A he Dis ser'in& his sentence !hich consists in depri'ation of libert"D* and (1 he e'ades ser'ice of sentence b" escapin& durin& the term of his sentence$ For, b" the e(press terms of the statute, a con'ict e'ades Dser'ice of his sentenceD b" Descapin& durin& the term of his imprisonment b" reason of final +ud&ment$D %hat escape should take place !hile ser'in& sentence, is emphasi@ed b" the pro'isions of the second sentence of Article .73 !hich pro'ides for a hi&her penalt" if suchD e'asion or escape shall ha'e taken place b" means of unla!ful entr", b" breakin& doors, !indo!s, &ates, !alls, roofs, or floors, or b" usin& picklocks, false ke"s, dis&uise, deceit, 'iolence or intimidation, or throu&h conni'ance !ith other con'icts or emplo"ees of the penal institution, $ $ $D Indeed, e'asion of sentence is but another e(pression of the term D+ail breakin&$DAs correctl" pointed out b" the -olicitor General DescapeD in le&al parlance and for purposes of Articles /1 and.73 of the RPC means unla!ful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custod"$ Clearl", one !ho has not been committed to prison cannot be said to ha'e escaped therefrom$

In the instant case, petitioner !as ne'er brou&ht to prison$ In fact, e'en before the e(ecution of the +ud&ment for his con'iction, he !as alread" in hidin&$ #o! petitioner be&s for the compassion of the Court because he has ceased to li'e a life of peace and tran,uilit" after he failed to appear in court for the e(ecution of his sentence$ But it !as petitioner !ho chose to become a fu&iti'e$ %he Court accords compassion onl" to those !ho are deser'in&$ PetitionerBs &uilt !as pro'en be"ond reasonable doubt but he refused to ans!er for the !ron& he committed$ 4e is therefore not to be re!arded therefor

P(+P)( ,& %')I(5 +)-C+ F-C5&: In an Information dated Au&ust A2, AGG2, =laco !as char&ed !ith ?ualified %heft$ When arrai&ned, =laco pleaded not &uilt"$ After trial on the merits, the R%C rendered a Cecision on <arch 7, AGG3, findin& =laco &uilt" and sentencin& her$ =n <arch A6, AGG3, =laco !as committed to the Correctional Institution for Women in <andalu"on& Cit"$ =laco filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals$ %he appeal !as C)#I)C$ 4o!e'er, in a letter dated 5anuar" A3, AG.., Rachel C$ Ruelo, -uperintendent I0 of the Correctional Institution for Women, informed the Court of Appeals that =laco had died on Februar" .3, AG.G$ I&&'(: W=# =laco8s death e(tin&uished her criminal liabilit" and ci'il liabilit"L Rulin&> R')ING: =laco8s death on Februar" .3, AG.G, durin& the pendenc" of her appeal, e(tin&uished not onl" her criminal liabilit" for ,ualified theft committed a&ainst pri'ate complainant Ruben 0inluan, but also her ci'il liabilit", particularl" the a!ard for actual dama&es, solel" arisin& from or based on said crime$ Accordin& to Article F/(. of the Re'ised Penal Code, criminal liabilit" is totall" e(tin&uished> HB" the death of the con'ict, as to the personal penalties* and as to pecuniar" penalties, liabilit" therefor is e(tin&uished onl" !hen the death of the offender occurs before final +ud&ment$I -ince, =laco8s appeal !as still pendin& and no final +ud&ment had been rendered a&ainst her at the time of her death, it is alread" unnecessar" to rule on her appeal$ Whether or not =laco !as &uilt" of the crime char&ed had become irrele'ant because e'en assumin& that =laco did incur criminal liabilit" and ci'il liabilit" e( delicto, these !ere totall" e(tin&uished b" her death, follo!in& Article F/(. of the Re'ised Penal Code and the &uidelines laid do!n in %eo"le v. (ayotas$ %eo"le of t#e %#ili""ines v. Juliet )laco y %oler, *.+. ,o. -./012, )ctober -/, 20--.

M-N'() $-)- ,& %'*G( -N5+NI+ M-R5IN(: N-5'R( Petition for certiorari and prohibition !ith preliminar" in+unction to re'ie! the order of the Court of First Instance of <anila F-C5& - %he petitioner had been indicted for remo'in& and substitutin& the picture of Cia@en !hich had been attached to her ;nited -tates of America passport, !ith that of #otarte, in effect falsif"in& a &enuine public or official document$ %he trial court ad+ud&ed petitioner Bala in Criminal Case #o$ A2221, &uilt" of the crime of falsification of a public document$ %he petitioner seasonabl" appealed, but the Court of Appeals, on April /, ./FG, affirmed in toto the lo!er courtBs decision$ After the case had been remanded to the court of ori&in for e(ecution of +ud&ment, the Petitioner applied for and !as &ranted probation b" the respondent +ud&e in his order dated Au&ust ..,. / F A $ % h e p e t i t i o n e r ! a s t h e n p l a c e d u n d e r probation for a period of one (. "ear, sub+ect to the terms and conditions enumerated therein$- %he probationer (petitioner asked his super'isin&p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o t r a n s f e r h i s residence from BF 4omes to Phil-Am :ife -ubdi'isioni n : a s P i N a s s p e c i f i c a l l " 1 1 5 i n & c o - t r e e t $ % h e probation officer 'erball" &ranted the probationerBs re,uest as he found nothin& ob+ectionable to it$- B" the terms of the petitionerBs probation, it should ha'e e(pired on Au&ust .G, ./F1, one "ear after the order &rantin& the same !as issued$ But, the order of f i n a l d i s c h a r & e c o u l d n o t b e i s s u e d b e c a u s e t h e respondent probation officer had not "et submittedh i s f i n a l r e p o r t o n t h e c o n d u c t o f h i s c h a r & e $ - u b s e , u e n t l " , t h e r e s p o n d e n t P e o p l e o f t h e Philippines, throu&h Assistant Cit" Fiscal 5ose C$C a + u c o m o f < a n i l a , f i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e ' o k e t h e probation of the petitioner before Branch EE of the Re&ional %rial Court (R%C of <anila, presided o'er b" the respondent +ud&e$ %he motion alle&ed that the petitioner had 'iolated the terms and conditions of his probation$- = n 5 a n u a r " 2 , . / F 2 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d h i s opposition to the motion on the &round that he !as n o l o n & e r u n d e r p r o b a t i o n , h i s p r o b a t i o n p e r i o d ha'in& terminated on Au&ust .G, ./F1, as pre'iousl" a d ' e r t e d t o $ A s s u c h , n o ' a l i d r e a s o n e ( i s t e d t o re'oke the same, he contended$ As if to confirm the <anila Assistant Cit" FiscalBs motion to re'oke thepetitionerBs probation, the respondent probationo f f i c e r f i l e d o n 5 a n u a r " 6 , . / F 2 , a m o t i o n t o terminate <anuel BalaBs probation, at the same time attachin& his pro&ress report on super'ision dated 5anuar" 7, ./F2$ %he same motion, ho!e'er, became the sub+ect of a D<anifestation,D dated 5anuar" .G, ./F2, !hich stated that the probation officer !as not pursuin& the motion to terminate dated 5anuar" 6,./F2*

instead, he !as submittin& a supplemental r e p o r t ! h i c h r e c o m m e n d e d t h e r e ' o c a t i o n o f probation Din the li&ht of ne! facts, information, and e'idences$D- %hereafter, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss andOor strike out the motion to re'oke probation, ,uestionin& the +urisdiction of the court o'er his casei n a s m u c h a s h i s p r o b a t i o n p e r i o d h a d a l r e a d " e ( p i r e d $ < o r e o ' e r , h i s c h a n & e o f r e s i d e n c e automaticall" transferred the 'enue of the case from the R%C of <anila to the )(ecuti'e$ 5ud&e, of the R%Co f < a k a t i ! h i c h l a t t e r c o u r t i n c l u d e u n d e r i t s + u r i s d i c t i o n t h e < u n i c i p a l i t " o f : a s P i N a s t h e probationerBs place of residence, in'okin& -ection .1,P$C$ #o$ /6F, !hich pro'ides -ec$ .1$ Control and -uper'ision of Probationer $ $$$Whene'er a probationer is permitted to reside in ap l a c e u n d e r t h e + u r i s d i c t i o n o f a n o t h e r c o u r t , c o n t r o l o ' e r h i m s h a l l b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e )(ecuti'e 5ud&e of the, Court of First Instance of t h a t p l a c e , a n d i n s u c h a c a s e a c o p " o f t h e probation order the in'esti&ation report and other pe r t i n e n t r e c o r d s s h a l l b e f u r n i s h e d t o s a i d )(ecuti'e $5ud&e$ % h e r e a f t e r $ t h e ) ( e c u t i ' e 5 u d & e t o ! h o m +urisdiction o'er the probationer is transferred shall h a ' e t h e p o ! e r ! i t h r e s p e c t t o h i m t h a t ! a s pre'iousl" possessed b" the court !hich &ranted the probation$- %he respondent +ud&e denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit$ 4ence, this petition$ I&&'( W = # h i s t r a n s f e r o f r e s i d e n c e a u t o m a t i c a l l " transferred +urisdiction o'er his probation from the <anila Re&ional %rial Court to the same court in his ne! address$ !()* #=- I n c r i m i n a l c a s e s , ' e n u e i s a n e l e m e n t o f +urisdiction$ -uch bein& the case, the <anila R%C !ould not be depri'ed of its +urisdiction o'er the probation case$ %o uphold the petitionerBs contention ! o u l d m e a n a d e p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e < a n i l a c o u r t B s po!er to &rant probation in the first place$ It is to be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t ! h e n t h e p e t i t i o n e r - a c c u s e d applied for probation in the then CFI of <anila, he ! a s a r e s i d e n t o f : a s P i N a s a s h e i s u p t o n o ! , althou&h in a different subdi'ision$ As pointed out earlier, he merel" mo'ed from BF 4omes to Philam :ife -ubdi'ision 11 5in&co -treet, also in :as PiNas$ = n t h e o t h e r h a n d , p u r s u i n & t h e p e t i t i o n e r B s ar&ument on this score to the limits of it lo&ic !ould mean that his probation !as null and 'oid in the p l a c e , b e c a u s e t h e n t h e < a n i l a C F I ! a s !ithout +urisdiction to &rant him probation as he !as a resident of :as PiNas$ It is therefore incorrect to a s s u m e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r B s c h a n & e o f a b o d e compels chan&e of 'enue, and necessaril", control o'er the petitioner, to the )(ecuti'e 5ud&e of the R%C of his ne! residence$ %hus, in the apportionment of the re&ional trial courts under Batas Pambansa Bl&$.A/, other!ise kno!n as the 5udiciar" Reor&ani@ationA c t o f . / F G , : a s P i N a s i s o n e a m o n & t h e mun icipalities included in the #ational Capital 5udicial R e & i o n (<etro <anila !ith a seat at <akati$ #eedless to sa", the Re&ional %rial Court in <akati, like the <anila Re&ional %rial Court, forms part of the Re&ional %rial Court of the #ational Capital Re&ion$ Accordin&l", the 'arious branches of the re&ional trial courts of <akati or <anila under the #ational Capital R e & i o n , a r e c o o r d i n a t e a n d c o - e , u a l c o u r t s , t h e totalit" of !hich is onl" one Re&ional %rial Court$ 5urisdiction is 'ested in the court, not in the

+ud&es$ I n o t h e r ! o r d s , t h e c a s e d o e s n o t a t t a c h t o t h e branch or +ud&e$ %herefore, in this case, R%C BranchEE of <anila, !hich &ranted the probation, has not lost control and super'ision o'er the probation of the petitioner$ *ispositive;Petition dismissed M+R(N+ vs. C+M()(C Case *i0est 'R$-N+ M. M+R(N+ vs. C+M()(C, (5 -). G.R. No. 168559. - 0 st 19, 2996 F-C5&: #orma :$ <e+es (<e+es filed a petition to dis,ualif" <oreno from runnin& for Punon& Baran&a" on the &round that the latter !as con'icted b" final +ud&ment of the crime of Arbitrar" Cetention$ %he Comelec en banc &ranted her petition and dis,ualified <oreno$ <oreno filed an ans!er a'errin& that the petition states no cause of action because he !as alread" &ranted probation$ Alle&edl", follo!in& the case of Bacla"on '$ <utia, the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment, as !ell as the accessor" penalties, !as thereb" suspended$ <oreno also ar&ued that under -ec$ .6 of the Probation :a! of ./36 (Probation :a! , the final dischar&e of the probation shall operate to restore to him all ci'il ri&hts lost or suspended as a result of his con'iction and to full" dischar&e his liabilit" for an" fine imposed$ 4o!e'er, the Comelec en banc assails -ec$ 2G(a of the :ocal Go'ernment Code !hich pro'ides that those sentenced b" final +ud&ment for an offense in'ol'in& moral turpitude or for an offense punishable b" one (. "ear or more of imprisonment, !ithin t!o (A "ears after ser'in& sentence, are dis,ualified from runnin& for an" electi'e local position$ -ince <oreno !as released from probation on Cecember AG, AGGG, dis,ualification shall commence on this date and end t!o (A "ears thence$ %he &rant of probation to <oreno merel" suspended the e(ecution of his sentence but did not affect his dis,ualification from runnin& for an electi'e local office$ =n his petition, <oreno ar&ues that the dis,ualification under the :ocal Go'ernment Code applies onl" to those !ho ha'e ser'ed their sentence and not to probationers because the latter do not ser'e the ad+ud&ed sentence$ %he Probation :a! should alle&edl" be read as an e(ception to the :ocal Go'ernment Code because it is a special la! !hich applies onl" to probationers$ Further, e'en assumin& that he is dis,ualified, his subse,uent election as Punon& Baran&a" alle&edl" constitutes an implied pardon of his pre'ious misconduct$ I&&'(: Coes <oreno8s probation &rant him the ri&ht to run in public officeL !()*: Pes$ -ec$ .6 of the Probation :a! pro'ides that DJtKhe final dischar&e of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all ci'il ri&hts lost or suspended as a result of his con'iction and to full" dischar&e his liabilit" for an" fine imposed as to the offense for !hich probation !as &ranted$D %hus, !hen <oreno !as finall" dischar&ed upon the courtBs findin& that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation, his case !as deemed terminated and all ci'il ri&hts lost or suspended as a result of his con'iction !ere restored to him, includin& the ri&ht to run for public office$ It is important to note that the dis,ualification under -ec$ 2G(a of the :ocal Go'ernment Code co'ers offenses punishable b" one (. "ear or more of imprisonment, a penalt" !hich also co'ers probationable offenses$ In spite of this, the pro'ision does not specificall" dis,ualif" probationers from runnin& for a local electi'e office$

Probation :a! should be construed as an e(ception to the :ocal Go'ernment Code$ While the :ocal Go'ernment Code is a later la! !hich sets forth the ,ualifications and dis,ualifications of local electi'e officials, the Probation :a! is a special le&islation !hich applies onl" to probationers$ It is a canon of statutor" construction that a later statute, &eneral in its terms and not e(pressl" repealin& a prior special statute, !ill ordinaril" not affect the special pro'isions of such earlier statute$ (li0i4ilit2 "or Pro4atio# (ve# -"ter -ppeali#0 Fro1 a# (rro#eo s % d01e#t : 5he Coli#ares vs. People <G.R. No. 182778, *ece14er 1=, 2911> *octri#e

F-C5& Accused-appellant Arnel Colinares (Arnel !as char&ed !ith frustrated homicide for hittin& the head of the pri'ate complainant !ith a piece of stone$ 4e alle&ed self-defense but the trial court found him &uilt" of the crime char&ed and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from A "ears and 2 months of "rision correccional, as minimum, to 6 "ears and . da" of "rision mayor, as ma(imum$ -ince the ma(imum probationable imprisonment under the la! !as onl" up to 6 "ears, Arnel did not ,ualif" for probation$ Arnel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA , in'okin& self-defense and, alternati'el", seekin& con'iction for the lesser crime of attempted homicide !ith the conse,uent reduction of the penalt" imposed on him$ 4is con'iction !as affirmed b" the CA$ 4ence, this appeal to the -upreme Court$ I&&'( Gi'en a findin& that Arnel is entitled to con'iction for a lo!er JlesserK offense Jof attempted homicideK and a reduced probationable penalt", ma" he ma" still appl" for probation on remand of the case to the trial courtL R')ING 3T#e Su"reme Court voted to %A+T4A556 *+A,T t#e a""eal, M)74F4 7 t#e CA decision and found Arnel *845T6 of ATT M%T 7 9not frustrated: &)M4C47 and S ,T ,C 7 #im to and indeterminate but %+)(AT4),A(5 "enalty of 1 mont#s of arresto mayor as minimum and 2 years and 1 mont#s of "rision correccional as ma!imum. T#e Court alsovoted ()" to allo* +rnel to +PP,- F.R PR./+01.N $it#in -; days from notice t#at t#e record of t#e case #as been remanded for e!ecution to trial court.< -2S, +rnel $ay still apply 3or pro%ation on re$and o3 t4e case to t4e trial co5rt. =rdinaril", Arnel !ould no lon&er be entitled to appl" for probation, he ha'in& appealed from the +ud&ment of the R%C con'ictin& him for frustrated homicide$ But, the Court finds Arnel &uilt" onl" of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the ma(imum of the penalt" imposed on him should be lo!ered to imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to t!o "ears and four months of "rision correccional, as ma(imum$ With this ne!

penalt", it !ould be but fair to allo! him the ri&ht to appl" for probation upon remand of the case to the R%C$ JWKhile it is true that probation is a mere pri'ile&e, the point is not that Arnel has the ri&ht to such pri'ile&e* he certainl" does not ha'e$ What he has is the ri&ht to appl" for that pri'ile&e$ %he Court finds that his ma(imum +ail term should onl" be A "ears and 2 months$ If the Court allo!s him to appl" for probation because of the lo!ered penalt", it is still up to the trial +ud&e to decide !hether or not to &rant him the pri'ile&e of probation, takin& into account the full circumstances of his case$ If the Court chooses to &o b" the dissentin& opinion8s hard position, it !ill appl" the probation la! on Arnel based on the trial court8s annulled +ud&ment a&ainst him$ 4e !ill not be entitled to probation because of the se'ere penalt" that such +ud&ment imposed on him$ <ore, the -upreme Court8s +ud&ment of con'iction for a lesser offense and a li&hter penalt" !ill also ha'e to bend o'er to the trial court8s +ud&mentQe'en if this has been found in error$ And, !orse, Arnel !ill no! also be made to pa" for the trial court8s erroneous +ud&ment !ith the forfeiture of his ri&ht to appl" for probation$ Ang =abayo ang nag=asala, ang #agu"it ay sa =alaba$ (the horse errs, the carabao &ets the !hip $ Where is +ustice thereL 4ere, Arnel did not appeal from a +ud&ment that !ould ha'e allo!ed him to appl" for probation$ 4e did not ha'e a choice bet!een appeal and probation$ 4e !as not in a position to sa", HB" takin& this appeal, I choose not to appl" for probation$I %he stiff penalt" that the trial court imposed on him denied him that choice$ %hus, a rulin& that !ould allo! Arnel to no! seek probation under this Court8s &reatl" diminished penalt" !ill not dilute the sound rulin& in Francisco$ It remains that those !ho !ill appeal from +ud&ments of con'iction, !hen the" ha'e the option to tr" for probation, forfeit their ri&ht to appl" for that pri'ile&e$ In a real sense, the Court8s findin& that Arnel !as &uilt", not of frustrated homicide, but onl" of attempted homicide, is an ori&inal con'iction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable penalt"$ 4ad the R%C done him ri&ht from the start, it !ould ha'e found him &uilt" of the correct offense and imposed on him the ri&ht penalt" of t!o "ears and four months ma(imum$ %his !ould ha'e afforded Arnel the ri&ht to appl" for probation$

MIC!-() P-*'- ,& P(+P)( F-C5&: Petitioner, !ho !as then .3 "ears old, !as in'ol'ed in sellin& ille&al dru&s$ Initiall" in his arrai&nment he pleaded not &uilt" but re-entered his plea of &uilt" to a'ail the benefits of first time offenders$ -ubse,uentl", he applied for probation but !as denied$ In his petition for certiorari, the court said that probation and suspension of sentence are different and pro'isions in PC 6G1 or RA /122 cannot be in'oked to a'ail probation$ It is specificall" stated that in dru& traffickin&, application for probation should be denied$ As aside issue, the court discussed the a'ailment of suspension of sentence under RA /122$ I&&'( Whether suspension of sentence under RA/122 can still be in'oked &i'en the fact that the accused is no! A. "ears old$ R')ING: #=$ %he suspension of sentence under -ection 1F of Rep$ Act #o$ /122 could no lon&er be retroacti'el" applied for the petitioner Rs benefit$ -e$ 1F of RA /122 pro'ides that once a child under .F "ears of a&e is found &uilt" of the offense char&ed, instead of pronouncin& the +ud&ment of con'iction, the court shall place the child in conflict !ith the la! under suspended sentence$ -ection 2G of Rep$ Act #o$ /122, ho!e'er, pro'ides that once the child reaches .F "ears of a&e, the court shall determine !hether to dischar&e the child, order e(ecution of sentence, or e(tend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the ma(imum a&e of A. "ears old $ Petitioner has alread" reached A."ears of a&e or o'er and thus, could no lon&er beconsidered a child for purposes of appl"in& Rep$Act /122$

%hus, the application of -ections1Fand2Gappearsmootandacademicasfarashiscaseis concerned$

Wilfredo %orres 's 4on$ #eptali Gon@ales

FAC%-> In ./3F, %orres !as con'icted of estafa$ In ./3/, he !as pardoned b" the president !O the condition that he shall not 'iolate an" penal la!s a&ain$ In ./FA, %orres !as char&ed !ith multiple crimes of estafa$ In ./F6, Gon@ales petitioned for the cancellation of %orres8 pardon$ 4ence, the president cancelled the pardon$ %orres appealed the issue before the -C a'errin& that the )(ec Cep8t erred in con'ictin& him for 'iolatin& the conditions of his pardon because the estafa char&es a&ainst him !ere not "et final and e(ecutor" as the" !ere still on appeal$ I&&'(: Whether or not con'iction of a crime b" final +ud&ment of a court is necessar" before %orres can be 'alidl" rearrested and recommitted for 'iolation of the terms of his conditional pardon and accordin&l" to ser'e the balance of his ori&inal sentence$ !()*: %he -C affirmed the follo!in&> .$ %he &rant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purel" e(ecuti'e acts !hich are not sub+ect to +udicial scrutin"$ A$ %he determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and the proper conse,uences of such breach, ma" be either a purel" e(ecuti'e act, not sub+ect to +udicial scrutin" under -ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code* or it ma" be a +udicial act consistin& of trial for and con'iction of 'iolation of a conditional pardon under Article .7/ of the Re'ised Penal Code$ Where the President opts to proceed under -ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code, no +udicial pronouncement of &uilt of a

subse,uent crime is necessar", much less con'iction therefor b" final +ud&ment of a court, in order that a con'ict ma" be recommended for the 'iolation of his conditional pardon$ 1$ Because due process is not semper et ubi,ue +udicial process, and because the conditionall" pardoned con'ict had alread" been accorded +udicial due process in his trial and con'iction for the offense for !hich he !as conditionall" pardoned, -ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code is not afflicted !ith a constitutional 'ice$ In proceedin& a&ainst a con'ict !ho has been conditionall" pardoned and !ho is alle&ed to ha'e breached the conditions of his pardon, the )(ecuti'e Cepartment has t!o options> (i to proceed a&ainst him under -ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code* or (ii to proceed a&ainst him under Article .7/ of the RPC !hich imposes the penalt" of prision correccional, minimum period, upon a con'ict !ho Hha'in& been &ranted conditional pardon b" the Chief )(ecuti'e, shall 'iolate an" of the conditions of such pardon$I 4ere, the President has chosen to proceed a&ainst the petitioner under -ection 62 (i of the Re'ised Administrati'e Code$ %hat choice is an e(ercise of the President8s e(ecuti'e prero&ati'e and is not sub+ect to +udicial scrutin"$

People vs &e#da2die0o, et. al. G.R. No. );==257 a#d ==25= %a# ar2 29, 1978 Facts: In these three cases of mal'ersation throu&h falsification, the prosecutionBs theor" is that in ./6/ :icerio P$ -enda"die&o, the pro'incial treasurer of Pan&asinan, in conspirac" !ith 5uan -amson " Gal'an, an emplo"ee of a lumber and hard!are store in Ca&upan Cit", and !ith Anastacio ?uirimit, the pro'incial auditor, as an accomplice, used si( (6 for&ed pro'incial 'ouchers in order to embe@@le from the road and brid&e fund the total sum of P73,G2F$A1$ %he pro'incial 'oucher in these cases has se'eral parts$ In the upper part !ith the le&end DAR%IC:) =R -)R0IC)D the nature of the obli&ation incurred is indicated$ %hat part is supposed to be si&ned b" t!o officials of the pro'incial en&ineerBs office and b" the &o'ernorBs representati'e$ %he middle part of the 'oucher contains fi'e numbered printed para&raphs$ Para&raph . is a certificate to be si&ned b" the creditor$ It is stated therein that the creditor 'ouches that the e(penses D!ere actuall" and necessaril" incurredD$ In the instant cases para&raph . !as not si&ned presumabl" because it is not rele'ant to the purchase of materials for public !orks pro+ects$ Para&raph A is a certification that the e(penses are correct and ha'e been la!full" incurred$ It is si&ned b" the pro'incial en&ineer$ Para&raph 1 contains these !ords> DAppro'ed for pre-audit and pa"ment, appropriations and funds bein& a'ailable therefore$D %his is si&ned b" the pro'incial treasurer$ Para&raph 2 is a certification !hich, as filed up in )(hibit S, 0oucher #o$ .G3A2 dated Februar" AF, ./6/, certif"in& that the 'oucher has been pre-audited and si&ned b" the auditor$ Para&raph 7 is a certification si&ned b" the pro'incial treasurer that the account mentioned in the pro'incial en&ineerBs certification D!as paid in the amount and on the date sho!n belo! and is char&eable as sho!n in the summar" hereof$ D It ma" be noted that the pro'incial treasurer si&ns t!o part of the 'oucher$ Iss e: Whether or not appellants are liable for the crimes of falsicification of public documents and si( crimes of mal'ersationL !eld:

-amson is con'icted of si( crimes of falsification of a public document and si( crimes of mal'ersation$ In lieu of the penalties imposed b" the trial court, he is sentenced to the follo!in& penalties> For each of the si( falsification of the 'ouchers ()(h$ S, =, P, ?, R and - , -amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of t!o (A "ears of prison correccional minimum, as minimum, to four (2 "ears of prision correccional medium, as ma(imum, and to pa" a fine of three thousand pesos$ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P.6,3A3$7A co'ered b" 'oucher #o$ .G3A2 ()(h$ S , -amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of t!el'e (.A "ears of prision ma"or ma(imum, as minimum, to se'enteen (.3 "ears of reclusion temporal medium, as ma(imum* to pa" a fine in the amount of P.6,3A3$7A, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #=$ A112/, :-11A7A $ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P.2,73.$F. co'ered b" 'oucher #o$ ..//7 ()(h$ = , -amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of t!el'e (.A "ears of prision ma"or ma(imum, as minimum, to se'enteen (.3 "ears of reclusion temporal medium, as ma(imum* to pa" a fine in the sum of P.2,73.$F., and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #o$ A117., :-11A72 $ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P6,A/G$6G co'ered b" 'oucher #o$ ..F3G ()(h$ ? , -amson is sentenced to an indertiminate penalt" of nine (/ "ears of prision ma"or medium, as minimum, to thirteen (.1 "ears of reclusion temporal minimum, as ma(imum* to pa" a fine of P6,A/G$6G, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #o$ A117G, :-11A71 $ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P/,36/$62 co'ered b" 'oucher #o$ ..F3. ()(h$ R , -amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of nine (/ "ears of prision ma"or medium, as minimum, to thirteen (.1 "ears of reclusion temporal minimum, as ma(imum* to pa" a fine of P/,36/$62, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #o$ A117G, :-11A71 $ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P7,.F3$AF, co'ered b" 'oucher #o$ ..F6/ ()(h$ P , -amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of fi'e (7 "ears of prision correccional ma(imum, as minimum, to ei&ht (F of prision ma"or minimum, as ma(imum* to pa" a fine of P7,.F3$AF, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #o$ A117G, :-11A71 $ For the mal'ersation of the sum of P2,7G.$1F co'ered b" 'oucher no$ ..F3A ()(h$ - , -amson is sentenced to an indeterminate penalt" of fi'e (7 "ears of prision correccional ma(imum, as minimum, to ei&ht (F "ears of prision ma"or minimum, as ma(imum* to pa" a fine of P2,7G.$1F, and to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the same amount (Criminal Case #o$ A117G, :-11A71 $ In the ser'ice of the t!el'e penalties meted to -amson, the threefold limit pro'ided for in article 3G of the Re'ised Penal Code should be obser'ed (People 's$ )scares, .GA Phil$ 633 , meanin& that the ma(imum penalt" that he should ser'e is three times the indeterminate sentence of t!el'e (.A "ears to se'enteen (.3 "ears, the se'erest penalt" imposed on him, or thirt"-si( (16 "ears to fift"one (7. "ears (see People 's$ PeNas, 6F Phil$ 711 $ %he ma(imum duration of his sentences should not e(ceed fort" (2G "ears (Penultimate par$ of art$ 3G* People 's$ Alisub, 6/ Phil$ 16A* People 's$ Concepcion, 7/ Phil$ 7.F, 6F Phil$ 71G and 6/ Phil$ 7F $ %he estate of the late :icerio P$ -enda"die&o is ordered to indemnif" the pro'ince of Pan&asinan in the sum of P73,G2F$A1$ -amson and the said estate are solitaril" liable for the said indemnit" (Art$ ..G, Re'ised Penal Code $ -amson should pa" one-half of the costs$ -= =RC)R)C$

P(+P)( ,& -))(N M-N5-)-$FAC%->

%he %ask Force Re&ional Anti-Crime )mer&enc" Response (RAC)R in Butuan Cit" recei'ed a report from an informer that a certain Allen <antalaba, !ho !as se'enteen (.3 "ears old at the time, !as sellin& s#abu at Purok 2, Baran&a" 1, A&ao Cistrict, Butuan Cit"$ Around 3 oBclock in the e'enin& of =ctober ., AGG1, the team, armed !ith the marked mone", proceeded to Purok 2, Baran&a" 1, A&ao Cistrict, Butuan Cit" for the bu"-bust operation$ %he t!o poseur-bu"ers approached Allen !ho !as sittin& at a corner and said to be in the act of sellin& shabu$ P=. Pa+o sa! the poseur-bu"ers and appellant talkin& to each other$ After!ards, the appellant handed a sachet of shabu to one of the poseur-bu"ers and the latter &a'e the marked mone" to the appellant$ %he poseur-bu"ers !ent back to the police officers and told them that the transaction has been completed$ Police officers Pa+o and -imon rushed to the place and handcuffed the appellant as he !as lea'in& the place$ t!o separate Informations !ere filed before the R%C of Butuan Cit" a&ainst appellant for 'iolation of -ections 7 and .. of RA /.67$ %he Court finds accused Allen <antalaba " ;dto+an G;I:%P be"ond reasonable doubt for ille&all" possessin& shabu, a dan&erous dru&$ %he CA affirmed in toto the decision of the R%C I--;)> W=# appellant, a .3 "ear old, ma" a'ail the suspension of sentence pursuant to sec$ 1F and 2G of RA /122L R;:I#G> %he appellant !as .3 "ears old !hen the bu"-bust operation took place or !hen the said offense !as committed, but !as no lon&er a minor at the time of the promul&ation of the R%C8s Cecision$ It must be noted that RA /122 took effect on <a" AG, AGG6, !hile the R%C promul&ated its decision on this case on -eptember .2, AGG7, !hen said appellant !as no lon&er a minor$ In People '$ -arcia (G$R$ #o$ .6/62., -eptember .G, AGG/, 7// -CRA AG , it !as held that !hile -ection 1F of RA /122 pro'ides that suspension of sentence can still be applied e'en if the child in conflict !ith the la! is alread" ei&hteen (.F "ears of a&e or more at the time of the pronouncement of hisOher &uilt, -ection 2G of the same la! limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the ma(imum a&e of A.$ 4ence, the appellant, !ho is no! be"ond the a&e of A. "ears can no lon&er a'ail of the pro'isions of -ections 1F and 2G of RA /122 as to his suspension of sentence, because this has alread" become moot and academic$ %eo"le of t#e %#ili""ines vs. Allen 8dtojan Mantalaba, *.+. ,o. ->?22/, July 20, 20--.

RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR. vs SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 175482, July 6, 2011

FACTS: An information was filed before the Ombudsman against herein petitioners Ambil and Apelado, then governor of Eastern Samar and Provincial Jail Warden of Eastern Samar ,respectively, for allegedly ordering and causing the release from the Provincial Jail of detention prisoner Mayor Francisco Adalim in violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. At the pre-trial, petitioner admitted the allegations in the Information reasoning however that Adalims transfer was justified considering the imminent threats upon his person and the dangers posed by his detention at the provincial jail. After trial, the Sandiganbayan found them guilty of the offense charged. ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioners? HELD: The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner Ambil, Jr. is beyond question. The same is true as regards petitioner Apelado, Sr. As to him, a Certification from the Provincial Government Department Head of the HRMO shows that his position as Provincial Warden is classified as Salary Grade 22. Nonetheless, it is only when none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher shall exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the lower courts. Here, petitioner Apelado, Sr. was charged as a co-principal with Governor Ambil, Jr., over whose position the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was correctly tried jointly with said public officer in the proper court which had exclusive original jurisdiction over them the Sandiganbayan.

P(+P)( ,& -$'N*I+ M-NGI)F-C5&:Ceath is the most se'ere penalt" for crime$ It is imposed in incestuous rape, re&ardless of an" miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstance$ In the case at bar, si(teen (.6 "ear old <ACRI:P# C$ <A#GI:A accused her father, AB;#CI= <A#GI:A " PAR)T=, of t!o (A counts of RAP), alle&edl" committed $ At about .>GG p$m$ of 5une 3, .//7, accused took <adril"n to 0illa %onan& to help him clean one of the houses he !as o'erseein&$ While in the kitchen of the house, accused be&an to take off <adril"nBs shorts$ -he be&&ed her father to stop$ Instead, he poked a knife at her neck and ra'ished her$ Curin& the hour-lon& se(ual assault, <adril"n felt e(cruciatin& pain$ 4elpless, she could onl" sit on the floor and cr" as the accused threatened to kill her should she re'eal her defloration$J2K Fear of reprisal sealed her lips$ In the mornin& of 5une .6, .//7, on her !a" to school, accused told <adril"n that he !ould fetch her after class$ War" of !hat accused !ould a&ain do to her, <adril"n spent the ni&ht !ith a friend$ 4er elder sister, :ourdes, and her aunt searched for her$ When the" found her, she confided to them that accused has 'iolated her$ Furious, :ourdes informed their mother of the rape$J6K #enita <an&ila recounted that in 5une .//7, a certain Badon& deli'ered to her a letter from <adril"n informin& her that accused had defiled her$ Before #enita could finish readin& the letter, the accused came and snatched it from her$ %he" had a heated ar&ument, !ith the accused den"in& <adril"nBs accusations$ :ater that e'enin&, <adril"n !as found hidin& in a friendBs house$ <adril"n confirmed to #enita the 'eracit" of !hat she had !ritten in her letter$ #enita confronted the accused !ho admitted his trans&ression$ %he accused knelt before #enita in supplication and be&&ed for her for&i'eness$ #enita !as unmo'ed$J3K -he accompanied <adril"n to the police station$ <adril"n e(ecuted an affida'itJFK on 5une A2, .//7 narratin& the rape incidents$ -he also under!ent a medical e(amination in Camp Crame$ %he medical report sho!ed that <adril"n !as in a non-'ir&inal state$ I--;)> W=# death penalt" shall be issued despite a miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstanceL 4):C> -ection 1, Rule ..6 of the ./F7 Rules on Criminal Procedure pro'ides> H-ection 1$ %leas of guilty to ca"ital offense@ rece"tion of evidence A When the accused pleads &uilt" to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searchin& in,uir" into the 'oluntariness and full comprehension of the conse,uences of his plea and re,uire the prosecution to pro'e his &uilt and the precise de&ree of culpabilit"$ %he accused ma" also present e'idence in his behalf %o breathe life into this rule, !e made it mandator" for trial courts to do the follo!in&>

(. conduct a searchin& in,uir" into the 'oluntariness and full comprehension of the conse,uences of the accused8s plea* (A re,uire the prosecution to pro'e the &uilt of the accused and the precise de&ree of his culpabilit"* and (1 in,uire !hether or not the accused !ishes to present e'idence on his behalf and allo! him to do so if he so desires$ %he records sho! that the trial court failed to compl" to the letter !ith these &uidelines$ It did not conduct a searchin& in,uir" on !hether accused understood the le&al conse,uences of his admission of &uilt$ It is not sho!n that accused !as informed of the effect of the concurrence of the special ,ualif"in& circumstance of minorit" of the 'ictim and his parental relationship to her$ After the accused testified on ho! he raped his dau&hter, he !as not apprised that his crime is punishable b" death$ %he trial court also failed to e(plain to him that as the penalt" of death is indi'isible, it shall be imposed despite an" miti&atin& or a&&ra'atin& circumstance attendin& its commission$ Apparentl", the trial court entertained the erroneous notion that the alle&ed into(ication of accused !ould lessen his liabilit"$