Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Kapunan vs Court of Appeals

Facts: The petitioners, Edgardo Kapunan and Oscar Legaspi charges with the killing
of KMU Chairman Rolando Olalia and his driver Leonor Alay-ay.
On June 1986 Olalia and Alay-ay dead body was found. The murder case of Olalia is
a controversial case during that time, Oliala is a profile individual being the
Chairman of the KMU at the time of his death..
On Nov. 1998, private respondents Feliciano Olalia and Perlina Alay-ay, filed a
complaint letter to Department of Justice for the alleged complex kidnapping and
killing of Olalia and Alay-ay against Edgardo Kapunan and Oscar Legaspi and other
men and officers of Phil. National Police and the AFP.
Sec. Serafin Cuevas, the Secretary of Department of Justice, created a Panel that
were tasked to conduct a preliminary investigation of Olalia case.
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss in Department of Justice on the ground that
the Amnesty granted to them by the National Amnesty Commission extinguishes
their criminal liability under Proclamation 347 issued by Pres. Fidel V. Ramos
entitled, Granting of Amnesty to the rebels, insurgents and all other persons, who
may or may be committed crimes against public order and crimes committed in
furtherance of political ends.
The petitioners filed a motion for certiorari.
Issues: Whether or not the amnesty granted to Kapunan and Legaspi, extinguishes
their criminal liability in Olalia case?
Held/Ruling:
The Panel created by the Department of Justice refused to consider the defense of
Amnesty of the petitioners on the ground that the document presented pertaining
to the Amnesty failed to show that the Olalia murder case was one of the crimes for
which the amnesty was applied for.
The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition, finding no grave of abuse of
discretion on the Panel created by the DOJ, The Appelate Court refused to rule on
the applicability of Amnesty issued to Kapunan and Legapi.
Finally the Supreme court s dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that
the Amnesty granted to Kapunan and Legaspi pertains only to the crimes against
rebellion and not covered crime of murder Olalia and Alay-ay case.

PURPOSE OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

The admission that human institution are imperfect and that there are
infirmities in the administration of justice and executive clemency is an
instrument for correcting these infirmities and for mitigating whatever
harness might be generated by a too strict application of the laws.

THE POWER OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IS NON-DELEGABLE POWER AND


MUST BE EXERCISE BY THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

Cannot be granted before conviction


Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment
Cannot be granted for violation of election laws, rules and regulations without
the favourable recommendation of COMELEC
Granted of amnesty must be with the concurrence of the majority of all
members of the Congress

PARDON NATURE AND LEGAL EFFECTS

Pardon is an act of grace or an act of pure generosity of the executive and he


can give or withdraw it before the Pardon is completed. No legal power can
compel the executive in giving the Pardon. Pardon requires acceptance for
the protection of the welfare of the recipient.
Looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense
of which he has been convicted, that is abolishes or forgives the punishment
for the reason it does not work the restoration of the rights to hold public
office or right of suffrage unless the rights expressly restored by the pardon.
When the pardon is full, in the eye of the law the person is innocent and as if
never committed the offense, it makes him, as it were, a new man and gives
him a new credit and capacity.

Effects:

It does not absolve civil liabilities for an offense


Does not restore public offices already forfeited, although eligibility

AMNESTY- grant of general pardon to a class of political offenders either after


conviction or even before the charges are filed.
OTHER FORMS OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

1. Reprieves
2. Commutations
3. Remission of Fines and forfeitures
A reprieve postpones the execution of an offense to a future day certain
commutation is a remission of a part (or a cutting short) of the punishment; a
substitution of a lesser penalty for the one originally imposed. (People v. Vera)
Remission of fines and forfeitures entails non-collection of money or property
lawfully adjudged but it does not have the effect of returning property already in the
legal possession of the government or a third person.

Parole" refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he has served
the minimum of his prison sentence;
"Executive Clemency" refers to Reprieve, Absolute Pardon, Conditional Pardon with or without Parole
Conditions and Commutation of Sentence as may be granted by the President of the Philippines;
Reprieve" refers to the deferment of the implementation of the sentence for an interval of time; it does
not annul the sentence but merely postpones or suspends its execution;
"Commutation of Sentence" refers to the reduction of the duration of a prison sentence of a prisoner;
"Conditional Pardon" refers to the exemption of an individual, within certain limits or conditions, from
the punishment which the law inflicts for the offense he had committed resulting in the partial extinction
of his criminal liability;
Absolute Pardon" refers to the total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it is
granted without any condition. It restores to the individual his civil and political rights and remits the
penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted;
"Petitioner" refers to the prisoner who applies for the grant of executive clemency or parole;
"Parolee" refers to a prisoner who is released on parole;
"Pardonee" refers to a prisoner who is released on conditional pardon;
"Client" refers to a parolee/pardonee who is placed under supervision of a Probation and Parole Officer;