CHAPTER 3

PARDON

Concept and Purpose of Pardon

Pardon is defined as an act of grace given by those charged with the power and
authority to execute laws exempting the individual subject of pardon from the punishment
the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. The grant of pardon is an executive clemency
that rests exclusively within the sound discretion of the President, and is exercised with the
objective of preventing a miscarriage of justice or correcting a manifest injustice.

Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution
of the laws, which exempts an individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the
law inflicts for a crime it has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive
magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not
communicated officially to the court. (De Leon vs. Director of Prisons, 31 Phil. 64)

Pardon is a form of executive clemency granted by the President of the Philippines

as a privilege extended to a convict as discretionary act of grace. Neither the legislative nor
the judiciary branch of government has the power to set conditions or establish procedures
for the exercise of this Presidential prerogative. It is highly political in nature and is usually
granted in response to popular clamor or to aid in the return to normalcy of a political
situation that might affect the country if not addressed.

Pardon is given by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be
pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the courts take no notice thereof.
Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of
which he has been convicted. It abolishes or terminates the punishment, and for that
reason does not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the rights of
suffrage, unless such rights are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon, and it, in no
case, exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence.

A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not
complete without acceptance. The purpose of pardon is to afford relief from undue
harshness or evident mistake in the operation and enforcement of criminal law.
(Domondon, Prim us, 2009 Wrap-up Reviewer Notes in Criminal Law, citing Monsanto vs.
Factoran, Jr., G.R. NO, 78239, February 9, 1989)

The Proclamation of July 4, 1902, with respect to those offenses which have arisen
out Of internal political feuds and dissensions among the Filipinos themselves, such as the
ordinary crimes of murder, robbery, arson, etc., must be regarded in the nature of a pardon.
(Moreno, Phil. Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 675, citing Villa vs. Allen, 2 Phil. 440)

A pardon may be general, applying to all persons falling within a certain category, or it may be conceded
to a single individual for an ordinary crime, in which later case it is a special pardon, and is
evidenced by a writing, the acceptance of which is necessary in order that it may become
effectual. (Moreno, Ibid, p. 675)

Different Kinds of Pardon

1. 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.

The President also grants absolute pardon to the imprisoned President he

has deposed. This has happened in many countries around the world. In our
jurisdiction, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo granted absolute pardon to
former President Joseph Estrada who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for the
crime of plunder.

Absolute pardon is granted to restore full political and civil rights to

convicted persons who have already served their sentence and have reached the
prescribed period for the grant of absolute pardon.

The Purposes of Absolute Pardon are:

a. To right a wrong. Nothing in this world is perfect. Even the administration

ofjustice can escape this phenomenon.
b. To normalize a tumultuous political situation. Those in power brand critics
and oppositions against an incumbent regime as criminals and subversives.

2. Conditional Pardon — refers to the exemption of an individual, within certain

limits or conditions, from the punishment the law inflicts for the offense he has
committed resulting in the partial extinction of the criminal liability.

A conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract between the Chief

Executive and the convict to the effect that the former will release the latter subject
to the condition that if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be
recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an
additional one. (Alvarez vs. Dir. ofPrison, 80 Phil. 50)

Conditional pardon is a contract between the Chief Executive (President of

the Republic) and the convicted criminal, the convict's consent to the terms
stipulated in the contract, the convict has placed himself under the supervision of
the Chief Executive or his delegate who is duty bound to see to it that the convict
complies with the conditions of the pardons. (Domondon, supra)

Conditional pardon is applicable to inmates who were slapped a fixed or

determinate sentence or a life imprisonment who are, otherwise, not eligible for
 parole. It has the nature of a contract in which the pardonee agrees to comply
strictly with the conditioned imposed by the pardon, otherwise, violations of the
conditions will revoke the contract of conditional pardon and the pardonee will be
criminally prosecuted as a violator.

In a conditional pardon, the condition may be less acceptable to the

condemned than the original punishment, and may in fact be more onerous. In this
respect it differs from a commutation, which is a mere reduction of the penalty, or
from a pardon which is its total remission. (Moreno, Phil. Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., p.
675)

Ways of Extending Conditional Pardon to the Convict:

a. Through the operation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
b. Through the grant of probation under the Probation Law; and
c. Through the exercise of the President, motu proprio, of the power under the
Constitution.

Similarities of Absolute and Conditional Pardon:

A pardon, whether absolute or conditional, is in the nature of a deed, for the

validity of which delivery is an indispensable requisite. Until accepted, all benefits to
the grantee may be cancelled. But once accepted by the grantee, the pardon already
delivered cannot be revoked by the authority which granted it.

3. General Pardon—isa pardon which applies to all persons falling within a certain
category. (Villa vs. Allen, 2 Phil. 440)

4. Special Pardon - is s pardon which is conceded to a single individual for an

ordinary crime. (Villa vs. Allen, 2 Phil. 440)

When is Pardon Granted?

Pardon is granted only after final conviction. As provided under Section 19 of Article
Vll of the present Constitution: "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. x x x." (Emphasis •supplied)

A pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and
legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. But unless expressly grounded on
the person's innocence, it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair
dealings. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., supra)

What Agency Recommends to the President the Grant of Pardon?

Pardon may be granted by the President of the Philippines upon the

recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP). The BPP is the agency in
charge with the release of sentenced prisoners based on modes specified by law. Its actions
and proceedings are governed by the provisions of Section 4 of Act No. 4103, otherwise
known as The Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, and Executive Order No. 292,
series of 1987, otherwise known as The Administrative Code of 1987.

The policy objectives of the BPP as enunciated in Section 1 of the Rules and
Regulation! of the Board of Pardons and Parole state: "Conformably with the basic precepts
of justice and mercy, it shall be the policy of the BPP to uplift and redeem valuable human
material to economic usefulness and to prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of
personal liberty."

What is the Effect of Pardon by the Chief Executive?

1. An absolute pardon extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender. (Article 89(3)
Revised Penal Code)
2. It does not exempt the offender from payment of the civil indemnity imposed in the
sentence. (Article 36, Revised Penal Code)
3. It does not restore the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage unless such
rights are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. (Article 36, Revised Pena/
Code)

Does the Grant of Pardon Work to Restore a Convicted Felon the Right to Hold Public Office?

The effect of pardon is provided under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides that:

"Art. 36. Pardon; its effects. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the
right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
restored by the term of the pardon.

A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence."

Civil liability arising from crime is governed by the Revised Penal Code. It subsists
notwithstanding service of sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served by
pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. Civil liability may be extinguished only by
the same causes recognized in the Civil Code, namely: payment, loss of the thing due,
remission of the debt, merger of the rights of the creditor and debtor, compensation and
novation. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., supra)

A pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily
relinquished or forfeited by reason of the conviction although such pardon undoubtedly
restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. The rationale is plainly evident. Public
offices are intended primarily for collective protection, safety and benefit of the common
good. They cannot be compromised to favor private interests. (ibid)

What is the Requirement before the Board of Pardon and Parole may recommend to the
President the Grant of Conditional Pardon?

The Board may nonetheless review and/or recommend to the President the grant Of
executive clemency to an inmate provided the inmate meets the following minimum
requirements of imprisonment. For Conditional Pardon, an inmate should have served at
least one-half (1/2) of the maximum of the original indeterminate and/or definite prison
term." (Section 4, as amended, Amended Guidelines for Recommending Executive
Clemency)

What are the Remedies of the State if Conditions of Pardon are violated?

Under Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code, the Chief Executive is
authorized to order "the arrest and re-incarceration of any such person who, in his
judgment, shall fail to comply with the condition, or conditions of his pardon, parole, or
suspension of sentence." (Torres vs. Dir. of Bureau of Corrections, G.R. No. 122338,
December 29, 1995)

Upon determination that a prisoner granted conditional pardon has violated the
conditions thereof, the Board shall recommend his arrest or recommitment to the
President. (Sec. 26, Amended Guidelines for Recommending Executive Clemency)

Thus, when the conditions are violated, the offender is considered in evasion of the
service of his sentence and shall be:

1. Rearrested and re-incarcerated by order of the President under the Revised

Administrative Code; or
2. Prosecuted under Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). When the penalty
remitted is 6 years and below, there will be an additional penalty; over 6 years, the
remaining sentence shall be served without additional penalty for the evasion.

What is the felony committed by the pardonee when he violated the condition of his pardon?

Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the proper felony to be charged
against the convicted felon who was granted and violated the conditions of his pardon:

"Art. 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. — The penalty of

prision correcciona/ in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict who,
having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of
the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of
such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired
portion of his original sentence."

Violation of Conditional Pardon is an infringement of the terms stipulated in a

contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and the criminal, to the effect
that the former will release the latter subject to the condition that if he does not comply
with the term, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the
sentence or an additional one. (Alvarez vs. Director of Prison, 80 Phil. 50)

Distinguish Amnesty and Absolute Pardon

1. In amnesty, the effects of a crime are erased or wiped out. Consequently, the convict
is deemed innocent as if no crime was committed at all; in absolute pardon, the
convict is excused from serving the sentence but does not erase the effects of
 conviction (unless the pardon was granted when the convict had already served the
sentence).
2. Amnesty may be granted even if the offender has not yet been convicted by virtue Of
a final judgment; it may be given before or after final judgment. On the other hand,
for absolute pardon to be valid, there must already be a final and executory
sentence.
3. Amnesty is a public act that requires the concurrence of Congress (the House Of
Representatives and the Senate); while absolute pardon is a private act of the Chief
Executive.
4. Amnesty is given to a class or group of offenders; while absolute pardon is given to
an individual convict.
5. Amnesty is extended only to offenders of political crimes; while absolute pardon
may be granted whether the crime is political or non-political.

Distinguish Conditional Pardon and Parole

1. The Chief Executive gives conditional pardon after conviction under the provisions
of the Revised Administrative Code; the Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) gives a
prisoner who has served the minimum of an indeterminate sentence parole.
2. For violation of the conditional pardon, the offender may either be re-arrested to
serve the remitted penalty or prosecuted under Article 159 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC); for violation of parole, the convict is re-arrested to serve the unexpired
portion of the penalty.

Distinguish Suspension of Sentence from Pardon

The power to suspend sentence and the power to grant reprieves and pardons are
totally distinct and different in their origin and nature:

1. Suspension of sentence is always a part of the judicial power, while pardon is

always a part of the executive power.
2. The suspension of sentence simply postpones the judgment of the court temporarily
or indefinitely, but the conviction and liability following it, and all civil disabilities,
remain and become operative when judgment is rendered. A pardon reaches both
the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender. It releases
the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eyes of the law the
offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. It removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores to him all his civil rights. It makes him as it
were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity. (Director of Prisons vs.
Judge of First Instance, 29 Phil. 294)

Distinguish Violation of Conditional Pardon from Evasion of Service of Sentence by

Escaping

Violation of conditional pardon does not cause harm or injury to the right of other
persons nor does it disturb the public order; it is merely an infringement of the terms
stipulated in the contract between the Chief Executive and the Criminal.
 Evasion of the service of the sentence is an attempt, at least, to evade the penalty
inflicted by the courts upon criminals and thus defeat the purpose of the law of either
reforming or punishing them for having disturbed the public order. (Alvarez vs. Director of
Prison, 80 Phil. 50) Effect of Appeal from Conviction by the Trial Court Where an accused
appealed his conviction by the trial court to the Court of Appeals (CA), his application for
pardon therefore, if one is made, should not be acted upon or the Process towards its grant
should not be begun unless the appeal is withdrawn. Hence, before an appellant may be
validly granted pardon, he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal, i.e., the appealed
conviction must first be brought to finality• It was held in the case of People vs. Crisola, 128
SCRA 1, March 2, 1984, that clemency terminates the appeal. However, said ruling was
corrected in the case of People vs. Salle, Jr., GR NO. 103567, December 4, 1995, which
provides that, since pardon can be extended 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.

It cannot absolve the convict of civil liability. In People vs. Nacional, G.R. No. 11294,
September 7, 1995, the court said that the grant of conditional pardon and the subsequent
dismissal of the appeal did not relieve the accused of civil liability.

Effect of the Death of Prisoner under Supervision

If a prisoner granted conditional pardon dies during the period of supervision, the
Probation and Parole Officer shall immediately transmit a certified true copy of the
prisoner's death certificate to the Board recommending the closing of the case. However, in
the absence of a death certificate, an affidavit narrating the circumstances of the fact of
death from the barangay chairman or any authorized officer or any immediate relative
where the prisoner resided shall suffice. (Sec. 31, Amended Guidelines for Recommending
Executive Clemency)

Pardon by the Offended Party

Pardon by the offended party in the prosecution of the crimes of adultery,

concubinage, seduction, abduction, and an act of lasciviousness is provided under Article
344 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which provides that:

"Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,

abduction, and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including

both the guilty parties if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders.

The offenses of seduction, adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and

acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the
offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, if the
 offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may
be.

In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the

marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph
shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices, and accessories after the
fact of the abovementioned crimes."

Pardon in Crimes against Chastity

By express provision of the law in Article 344, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code,
pardon either express or implied by the offended party to the offender is a bar to
prosecution of adultery or concubinage.

Pardon in seduction, adultery and concubinage must come before the institution of
the criminal action and both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party if said
pardon is to be effective. So, where the offended husband had pardoned the adulterous act
of his wife, such pardon precluded him from prosecuting for adultery, not only of his wife
but also of her paramoUr. (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 15th Ed. 2001 citing People vs.
Infante, 57 Phil. 138 and people vs. Mendez, et al., C.A., 51 0.G. 1909)

What is the effect of the Affidavit of the Husband in which he pardoned his Wife after the case
was already instituted and under Trial?

In one case the Supreme Court held that, in view of the requirements of Article 344
of the Revised Penal Code that the pardon must come before the institution of criminal
prosecution; and both the offenders must be pardoned by the offended party; the motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of the defendant wife alone based on an affidavit executed by the
offended husband in which he pardoned her for her infidelity cannot prosper. (People vs.
Infante, 57 Phil. 138)

Can the Parent, Grandparents or Guardian grant Pardon to the Offender without the Express
Pardon of the Offended Girl?

Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that offenses of seduction,
abduction, rape, act of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted in any case, if the offender has
been expressly pardoned by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian,
as the case may be.

However, the mother of the offended girl, 11 years of age, cannot validly grant
pardon, because the pardon must be granted directly by the offended party, and it is only
when the girl is dead or otherwise incapacitated to grant it, that her parents, grandparents
or guardian may do so for her.
 Pardon by the parent must be accompanied by the express pardon of the girl herself.
(Reyes, RPC, supra, p. 902[emphasis supplied]) Pardon by the offended party who is a
minor must have the concurrence of parents because the minor in her tender age and lack
of sufficient knowledge, would hardly know the full impact and consequences of her acts.
An exception is when the offended girl has no parents who could concur in the pardon, she
can validly extend a pardon even if she is a minor, as when the offender is her father and
her mother is already dead. (People vs. Lacson, Jr., C.A., 56 0.6. 9460)

Prosecution of Rape may be made upon Complaint by any Person

By virtue of Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of
1997" which took effect on October 22, 1997, rape has been reclassified as a crime against
persons and, thus, may be prosecuted even without a complaint filed by the offended party.
Prior to the enactment of the said law, rape is classified as a crime against chastity under
Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code. Now, the crime of rape is punishable under Article
266 of the Revised Penal Code and may be prosecuted even without complaint of Offended
Party. Hence, it can now be instituted by any person.

Effect of Marriage between the Offended Party and the Accused

A valid marriage between the offender and the offended party prior to or even after
the institution of the criminal action or conviction will extinguish the criminal action or
remit the penalty already imposed against the offender, his co-principals, accomplices and
accessories. This rule is applicable only to crimes of seduction, abduction, adultery and
concubinage but not to rape because rape is now a crime against persons.

Effect of Marriage between the Offended Party and the principal Accused in Rape
Cases

As provided in Art. 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 2 of

R.A. No. 8353, the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.

In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or penalty: Provided, that the
crime shall not extinguish or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio
(from the beginning). (Art. 266-C, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, Revised Penal Code)

The above provision is not applicable in rape where there are two or more
principals involved and in case of multiple rape. Only the criminal liability of the accused
who marries the victim will be extinguished. In other words, if there are two or more
crimes of rape committed by several persons as principals by direct participation, the rule
is not applicable because each carnal knowledge amounts to a separate and independent
crime of rape.
In rape cases where the offended party married the principal accused while serving his
sentence at the national penitentiary, what is now the remedy of the latter to secure his
proper and most expeditious release from the National Penitentiary?

To secure the proper and most expeditious release of the principal accused who is
now married to the offended party from the national penitentiary, his counsel should file
(a) a petition for habeas corpus for the immediate release of the convict, or (b) a motion in
the court which convicted him, to nullify the execution of his sentence or the order of his
commitment on the ground that a supervening development had despite the finality of the
judgment occurred. (Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766 [1950)

What is the Effect of an Affidavit of Retraction or Desistance of the victim in Rape Cases? Does
it Constitute Acquittal?

In the case of Echegaray, the affidavit of desistance which the victim herself
intended to disregard must have no bearing on the criminal prosecution against the
accused particularly on the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. (People vs. Echegaray,
G.R. No. 117472, February 7, 1997)

Distinction of Pardon by the Chief Executive from Pardon by the Offended Party

1. Pardon by the chief Executive can extend to any crime, unless otherwise provided
by or subject to conditions in the Constitution or the laws. Whereas pardon by the
offended party applies only to crimes against chastity under the Revised Penal Code.
2. Pardon by the Chief Executive extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender;
such is not the case when the pardon is given by the offended party.
3. The former cannot affect the civil liability ex delicto (from or out of a criminal act) of
the offender whereas in the latter, the offended party can waive the civil liability.
4. Pardon by the Chief Executive is granted only after conviction and may be
extended to any of the offender; while in cases where the law allows pardon by the
offended party, the pardon should be given before the institution of criminal
prosecution and must be extended to both offenders.
 CHAPTER 4
AMNESTY

Definition and Nature of Amnesty

Amnesty, derived from the Greek word amnasthia, has retained the original general
concept of oblivion, although it has evolved into distinct technical concepts in criminal law,
constitutional law and international law. A sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts,
granted by a government to all persons (or to certain classes of persons) who have been
guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses — treason, sedition, rebellion, draft
evasion — and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a
prescribed time.

An amnesty is an act of grace by the Chief Executive, proceeding from the power
entrusted with the execution of the laws and concurred by the legislature, usually extended
to groups of persons who committed political offenses, and which puts into oblivion the
offense itself. (Defined by the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic
Planning Ofice)

Amnesty is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon for a
past offense, and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a single individual, and is usually
exercised in behalf of a certain class of persons, who are subject to trial but have not yet
been convicted. (Brown vs. Walker, 161 US. 602)

In one case, the Supreme Court, said amnesty "commonly denotes the general
pardon to rebels for their treason and other high political offenses, or the forgiveness
which one sovereign grant to the subject of another, who have offended by some breach of
the law of nations." The term "amnesty" belongs to international law, and is applied to
rebellions which by their magnitude are properly within international law, but has no
technical meaning in the common law. It is a synonym of pardon. (Villa vs. Allen, 2 Phil.
436, 439 [1903)

Amnesty is a Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of congress,

and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Amnesty looks
backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and
obliterates the offenses with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty
stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. (People vs. Casido,
G.R. No. 116512' March 7, 1997)

Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. defines amnesty basically as a general pardon and
submits that what distinguish the two forms of executive clemency (pardon and amnesty)
are simply the "number of recipients of the acts of clemency and the nature of the offense
which is their subject."ln fact, he opines that what the President may not grant by amnesty
because Of the non-concurrence of Congress, he may grant by individual pardon.
 In essence, amnesty is viewed in municipal law, whether in constitutional law o r
criminal law, as an act of mercy by the sovereign partaking of the nature of an executive
clemency.

Purpose of Amnesty

The purpose of amnesty is to hasten a country's return to political normalcy by

putting behind it the animosities of the past through a pardon that will open the door to
living normal lives for groups Of people targeted by the amnesty. These groups were once
involved in political activities during certain troubled times like war or rebellion and by
making a gesture of the state forgetting past destructive activities of political dissidents or
rebels and allowing them to lead normal lives, the country in turn will ensure its return to
normalcy.

Amnesty Completely Extinguishes the Penalty and Its Effects

Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so
overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged; that the person released by
amnesty stand before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. In one case
decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that to avail of the benefits of an amnesty
proclamation, one must admit his guilt of the offense covered by the proclamation. (Vera v.
People of the Philippines, 7 SCRA 152)

Amnesty is a public act of which the court should take judicial notice. Thus, the right
to the benefits of amnesty, once established by the evidence presented, either by the
complainant or prosecution or by the defense, can not be waived, because it is of public
interest that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation, which has the force of
law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed
any punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or hero, and not be
punished as a criminal. (Herrera, Remedial Law IV, 2007 ed., p. 659 citing Barrioquinto, et
al. vs. Fernandez, et al., 82 Phil. 642 [1949)

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the person released
under an amnesty proclamation stands before the law precisely as though he had
committed no offense. Par. 3, Art. 89, Revised Penal Code, provides that criminal liability is
totally extinguished by amnesty; the penalty and all its effects are thus extinguished.
(People v. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, September 29, 2000)

Limitations on the Exercise of Granting Amnesty

1. It cannot be granted in cases of impeachment [Sec. 19, Art. Vll of the Constitution];
2. It cannot be granted in cases of violation of election laws without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission on Elections (Sec. 5, Art. IX-C);
3. A grant of amnesty must be with the concurrence of a majority of all members of
congress.
Distinguish Amnesty under Philippine laws and American laws

Basically, amnesty as it has been utilized and understood in Philippine history, is

taken as having the same nature and effect as its American counterpart. The only difference
is in the source of the power to grant amnesty; in the Philippines, amnesty is granted by the
Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, while amnesty in the United States
(U.S.)is deemed included in the pardoning power of the President.

Under American constitutional law, amnesty is defined as 'tan exercise of the

sovereign POwer by which immunity to prosecution is granted by wiping out the offense
supposed to have been committed by a group or class of persons prior to their being
brought to trial." By express provision, grant of amnesty takes the form of a general pardon
by virtue of presidential proclamations without the concurrence of Congress.

As practiced in the U.S., an amnesty in favor of a class or classes of person accused of

certain offenses against the State is deemed to constitute an act of oblivion, obliterating not
just the penalty but also the offense itself. This was the effect of the amnesty proclamation
issued in 1863 by US President Abraham Lincoln following the Civil War in the US, and
during the Vietnam conflict in the 1970s to favor those guilty of violating the Military
Selective Service Act amidst strong opposition from different sectors.

In the 1987 Philippine Constitution particularly Section 19, paragraph 2, the power
to grant amnesty is expressly provided and granted to the President subject to the
concurrence of a majority of the members of Congress. Philippine Presidents have used
amnesty to restore unity and harmony in society after divisive issues polarized Philippine
society.

Throughout Philippine constitutional history, except the period of American

military occupation of the islands, the power to grant amnesty has always been expressly
provided for as a power shared by both the executive and the legislative branches of
government.

Amnesty during the Spanish Regime

Studies of the Philippine history have mentioned amnesty proclamations made in

the nature of general pardons during the Spanish regime granted by Governor-Generals to
include Legazpi (to Rajah Soliman and other chiefs in the 1570s), Polavieja (January 11,
1897), Fajardo, Corcuera and Manrique de Lara, particularly those granted to Filipino and
Chinese insurgents. Amnesty during the American Regime The first amnesty proclamation
in the country took effect in the 20thcentury and was issued by US President Roosevelt on
July 4, 1902. It granted full and complete pardon and amnesty in favor of persons who
committed treason, sedition and all other crimes of political character in the course of the
"insurrection" of the Filipinos against the Spaniards, as well as those who gave aid or
comfort to said persons. The proclamation also covered offenses, which grew out of
internal political feuds and dissensions between Filipinos and Spaniards or with the
Spanish authorities or among the Filipinos themselves. The only condition set forth in the
terms of the proclamation was the taking of an oath of allegiance to the United States Of
America. The proclamation, deemed as a "wise and humane" act "conducive to peace, order
and loyalty," excluded the following from its coverage:

1. Persons committing crimes since May 1, 1902 in any province where the civil
government is already established; and
2. Those convicted of murder, rape, arson, or robbery by any military or civil tribunal
organized by the Spanish or American authorities, unless they have applied for and
were granted pardon.

In spite of these exclusions, however, it is still, in essence, the only general amnesty
which took effect in the Philippines so far because the grant covered not only those
offenses which arose from the revolution against Spain but also those which grew out of
internal dissensions. Furthermore, the amnesty applied to all areas that came under the
jurisdiction of the American government. This power to grant pardon and reprieve was
later extended to the Governor General of the Philippine Islands under the Jones Law in
1916.

The 1935 Constitution, after the draft by a Constitutional Convention received the
approval of the President of the United States and the ratification of the Filipino electorate,
established the Philippines as a Republican State and provided that: The President shall
have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly.

List of Amnesty Proclamations, Presidential Decrees and Issuances by Philippine

Presidents after the Japanese Invasion

1. Proclamation No. 8 — President Manuel Roxas granted amnesty to guerilla and

resistance fighters on September 7, 1946. The amnesty sought to recognize such
persons not as criminals but as patriots and heroes who have rendered invaluable
service to the nation. A Guerilla Amnesty Commission was formed by virtue of
Administrative Order No. 11 (October 21, 1946) to which those who sought to avail
of the amnesty must apply. Six additional commissions known as the Philippine
Army Amnesty Commissions, which were to take cognizance of the cases of persons
subject to military law and falling within the terms of the proclamation, were
created later through Administrative Order No. 17 (November 15, 1946).
2. Proclamation No. 51 — dated January 28, 1948, President Roxas issued a
proclamation that granted amnesty to those who collaborated with the enemy
during World War l l .
3. Proclamation No. 76 — issued by President Elpidio Quirino on June 21, 1948
granted conditional amnesty limited to leaders and members of the groups Hukbong
Bayan Laban sa Hapon (HUKBALAHAP) and Pambansang Kaisahanng mga
Magbubukid (PKM).
4. Proclamation Nos. 81 and 86 — were thereafter issued (15 and 31 July 1948,
respectively) extending the original period up to August 15, 1948.
5. Proclamation No. 164 — issued on January 4, 1950 by President Quirino granting
conditional and limited amnesty to Francisco Medrano (a supporter of Pres. Laurel)
 and other participants to the uprising, whom the President regarded as motivated
by a "mistaken belief" that they are just grievances against the duly constituted
authorities which could be redressed by armed resistance. The proclamation
covered the crimes Of rebellion, sedition, and disloyalty committed by the said
persons subject to their surrender to the provincial authorities and the laying down
of arms and ammunitions.
6. Republic Act No. 810 — gives authority to the Guerilla Amnesty Commission to hear
amnesty applications, issued on June 22, 1952.
7. Proclamation No. 95 — declares amnesty to persons penalized because of their
political or religious belief issued on January 11, 1973.
8. Proclamation Decree No. 206 — are guidelines covering the jurisdiction of military
tribunals and civil courts, issued on June 6, 1973.
9. Proclamation Decree No. 497 — grants amnesty to all Filipino Muslims penalized for
their resistance to authorities issued on June 28, 1974.
10. Proclamation Order No. 571 — was issued on November 1, 1974 granting amnesty
in favor of officers and ranking leaders of the CPP, PKP, HUKs (which became the
Hukbong Mapagpalayang Bayan (HMBI), Malayang Samahanng Magsasaka
(MASAKA), Malayang Pagkakaisang Kabataang Pilipino (MPKP) and Samahang
Pambansang Kababaihansa Pilipinas (SPKP) who indicated their desire to return to
the folds of the law and cooperate with the program of the New Society.
Proclamation Decree No. 571A issued on November 2, 1974, granting amnesty to
political expatriates.
11. The Tripoli Agreement—pursuant to this Agreement signed in Tripoli, Libya on
December 23, 1976, a limited and conditional amnesty was granted in favor of the
leaders, members and/or sympathizers of the MNLF and the Bangsa Moro Army on
February 2, 1977 with a view of attaining the objectives of the peace-making efforts
of the government and encouraging dissidents to return to the folds of the law.
12. Presidential Decree No. 1429 — issued by President Marcos on June 10, 1978, which
granted conditional amnesty to persons arrested and/or charged, or although not
arrested and/or charged who may have committed acts which made them liable for,
rebellion, sedition, subversion, illegal possession of firearms and other crimes
committed in furtherance thereof.
13. Proclamation Decree No. 1727A — prohibits the grants of permits for holding public
rallies, etc. to persons found guilty of rebellion, etc., issued on October 08, 1980.
14. Presidential Decree No. 1745 — in view of the many cases of simple illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions filed in court, President Marcos issued this
decree on November 20, 1980 granting amnesty to persons who were under arrest
and/or investigated for, charged with, or convicted of, the said crime and who
applied therefor in writing to the proper authorities within three months from the
date of the decree.
15. Proclamation No. 80 — the amnesty issued by President Corazon Aquino to persons
who, in furtherance of their political beliefs, committed acts penalized by existing
laws issued on February 28, 1987. The proclamation granted amnesty to persons
who may have committed crimes in furtherance of political beliefs but it covered
only those "not being in the custody of, or charged by, or undergoing investigation
by the constituted authorities."
16. Memorandum Circular 105 — issued on September 26, 1989 as clarificatory
guidelines for processing of amnesty manifestation forms of rebel returnees.
17. Executive Order No. 350 — guidelines governing processing of amnesty
manifestati0n forms of rebel returnees, issued on March 13, 1989.
18. Proclamation No. 10 — issued on July 27, 1992 by President Fidel V. Ramos granting
amnesty to persons who have filed or will still file applications for "Cory grants
amnesty to rebels," which was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on March
1, 1987.
19. Proclamation No. 10-A — was issued to cover a total of 4,485 returnees whose
applications were not acted upon under the Aquino Administration. It also
established the National Unification Commission (NUC), which was an advisory
body tasked to hold consultations with the people, including all rebel groups, as well
as the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police
(PNP), and to recommend to the President a viable general amnesty program and
process which will lead to a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace.
20. Proclamation No. 347 — by its express terms, seeks to hasten the peace process and
to reintegrate, as soon as possible, all rebels and insurgents into the mainstream of
society, including those who had been charged or convicted.
21. Proclamation No. 348 — issued on March 25, 1994, granting amnesty to certain AFP
and PNP personnel who committed acts in connection with counter insurgency
options. By virtue of this proclamation is the creation of the National Amnesty
Commission (NAC), a body tasked with determining who among the applicants are
qualified for amnesty.
22. Proclamation No. 723 — issued on May 17, 1996, granting amnesty to members and
supporters of the Rebolusyonaryong Alyansang Makabansa-Soldiers of the Filipino
People-Young Officers' Union (RAM-SFP-YOU).
23. Presidential Proclamation 724 — the Proclamation that amended Presidential
Proclamation 347. The following are crimes covered by the Grant of amnesty under
Presidential Proclamation No. 724:
a. Rebellion or Insurrection
b. Coup d'etat
c. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat
d. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
e. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
f. Sedition
g. Conspiracy to commit sedition
h. Inciting to sedition
i. Illegal assembly
j. Illegal association
k. Direct Assault
l. Indirect assault
m. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such
persons
n. Tumults and other disturbances of public order Unlawful use of means of
publication and
o. unlawful utterances
 p. Alarms and scandals
q. Illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in
furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and
insurrection
r. Violations of Articles of Wars:
a. Art. 59 (Desertion)
b. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave)
c. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition)
d. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition)
e. Art. 94 (Various Crimes)
f. Art. 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman)
g. Art. 97 (General Article)
24. Executive Order No. 299 — this was issued on May 17, 1996for the National
Amnesty Commission to verify, process, and determine RAM-SFP-YOU members to
be granted amnesty.
25. Proclamation No. 21 —issued on September 23, 1998amending proclamation no.
347 (s. 1994) re: grant of amnesty to rebel, insurgents etc.
26. Proclamation No. 390 — issued on September 29, 2000, granting amnesty to MILF
members who committed crimes in furtherance of their political beliefs.
27. Proclamation No. 405—Granting amnestyto rebels who committed crimes in
furtherance of their political beliefs issued on October 26, 2000.
28. Proclamation No. 1377 — grant of amnesty to members of the CPP-NPA-NDF and
other communist rebel groups issued on September 06, 2007. P
29. roclamation No. 50 —was issued on October 11, 2010 by President Benigno S.
Aquino Ill granting amnesty to certain active and former personnel of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and their supporters, who have or may have
committed acts or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Articles
of War or other special laws in connection with, in relation or incident to the July 27,
2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and/or the November
29, 2007 Manila Pen Incident and related incidents.

Congress, by a majority of each chamber, will now deliberate on whether to

pass a Concurrent Resolution. The amnesty is effective on the date of signing; what
Congress is essentially deciding is if it will revoke the amnesty or not. Passage of a
Concurrent Resolution is essentially affirmation of the amnesty by each chamber of
the legislature.

Under the amnesty in Proclamation No. 50, the concerned AFP personnel and
their supporters may apply for amnesty under the Proclamation with the
Department Of National Defense (DND), which will receive and process the
applications and determine whether the applicants are covered. Decisions can be
appealed to the Office of the President. The amnesty covers the period of ninety (90)
days following the date of the publication of the Proclamation in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
Effects of the Amnesty Proclamation No. 50 issued by President Benigno S. Aquino Ill

1. To extinguish any criminal liability for acts committed in relation to, in connection with
or incident to the July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and
the November 29, 2007 Manila Pen Incident without prejudice to the grantee's civil liability
for injuries or damages caused to private persons.
2. To effect the restoration of civil and political rights or entitlement that may have been
suspended, lost, or adversely affected by virtue of any executive action and/or
administrative criminal action or proceedings lodged against the grantee in connection
with the subject incidents, including criminal conviction or any form, if any.
3. All enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines whose applications for
amnesty would be approved shall be entitled to reintegration or reinstatement, subject to
existing laws and regulations. Officers of the AFP on the other hand shall not be entitled to
reintegration or reinstatement into the service.
4. The amnesty shall reinstate the right of AFP personnel to retirement and separation
benefits, if so qualified under existing laws and regulations at the same time of the
commission of the acts for which the amnesty is extended.

Express Amnesty and Implied Amnesty

An express amnesty is one granted in direct terms such as a Presidential

proclamation or a law enacted by the legislature granting amnesty. An implied amnesty, on
the other hand, takes place in international law when a treaty of peace is made between
contending parties; in domestic or municipal law, it results from the inhibition of the State
from prosecuting or punishing persons who committed political offenses, or when the law
punishing a certain crime is repealed with retroactive effect resulting in the
decriminalization of the act and the release of those charged or convicted for the same.
Congress' recent repeal of Republic Act 1700, known as the Anti-Subversion Law, is an
implied amnesty.

General Amnesty and Limited Amnesty

A general amnesty is granted to a whole class of persons within the territorial

domain or under the effective jurisdiction of the sovereign issuing the decree, while a
selected or limited amnesty covers a segment of a particular class only or the portion of the
sovereign's territorial jurisdiction, or specific acts committed within a limited or specified
time frame.

A grant of general amnesty, therefore, usually takes effect within the whole country
with respect to all political dissenters who had performed acts for which the amnesty is
granted, subject to the conditions imposed by the grant, if any. The sole criterion is the
commission Of the act alone as specified in the decree. A limited amnesty, on the other
hand, qualifies the grant with respect to persons/groups to be favored, places where the
amnesty is to be effective and/or the time frame to which the decree was limited.
Conditional Amnesty and Unconditional Amnesty

There is a slight variance in international law, where a general amnesty is general in

the sense that it provides immunity for all wrongful acts done by the belligerents
themselves, the members of their forces and their subjects during the war, and a limited
amnesty provides immunity only for such offenses and/or persons provided within the
terms of the decree. When the grant of amnesty is subject to the fulfillment of certain
requisites, such as the filing of an application, the laying down of arms, and the taking of an
oath of allegiance, that amnesty is deemed conditional, i.e., that the amnesty will only be
granted if the applicants comply with certain requirements and procedures, as compared
to a grant which is expressed in broad terms and does not lay down specific requirements
and procedures. Amnesties belonging to the latter category are deemed unconditional.

Difference between Amnesty and Pardon

1. A special form of pardon exercised by the President of the Republic is amnesty.

Amnesty is a general pardon extended to a certain class of people who are usually
political offenders. Although pardon is likewise issued by the President and is also
political in nature, it is an exclusive act of the President where the court and
Congress has no say whatsoever.
2. Amnesty operates objectively with respect to the crime, and by virtue thereof the
latter should be regarded as wiped out, pardoned and forgotten. It is in this respect
that an amnesty is distinguished from an ordinary pardon, which is more of a
subjective character and solely affects the person pardoned, and is granted upon the
supposition of the actual existence of the crime.
3. A pardon is very different in its character and effect from an amnesty, which is much
more favorable in every respect to those benefited thereby. The effects and legal
consequences of an amnesty are entirely distinct from and can not be legally
confused with those of a pardon. (Villa vs. Allen, 2 Phil. 440)

Other Suggested Answer:

The difference between pardon and amnesty are —

In Pardon:

The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects of conviction
remain unless expressly remitted by the pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there must
be a sentence already final and executor at the time the same is granted. Moreover, the
grant is in favor of individual convicted offenders, not to a class of convicted offenders; and
the crimes subject to the grant may be common crimes or political crimes. Finally, the grant
is a private act of the Chief Executive which does not require the concurrence of any other
public officer or office.

In Amnesty:

The criminal complex of act constituting the crime is erased, as though such act was
innocent when committed; hence, the effects of the conviction are obliterated. Amnesty is
granted is in favor of a class of convicted offenders, not to individual convicted offenders;
and the crimes involved are generally political offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a
public act that requires the conformity or concurrence of the Philippine Senate. (U.P Law
center' Suggested Answer for the 2006 Bar Examination Question No. IV, 2008 ed., pp. 16
and 17)

The National Amnesty Commission (NAC)

The National Amnesty Commission (NAC) is the primary agency tasked to receive
and Process applications for amnesty, and determine whether the applicants are entitl ed
to amnesty under any Proclamation by the President granting amnesty. Pursuant to its
functions, it has the power to Promulgate rules and regulations subject to the approval of
the President. Final decisions or determinations of the NAC are appealable to the Court of
Appeals (CA).

The National Amnesty Commission (NAC), was created by virtue of Proclamation

No. 347, dated 25 March 1994, to receive and process former rebels' applications for
amnesty and determine whether the applicants are entitled for the grant of amnesty under
said proclamation. The commission, to date, has received almost 25,000 amnesty
applications and granted amnesty to more than 20,000 former rebels.

The Abolition of the National Amnesty Commission (NAC)

By virtue of Executive Order No. 415 issued by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
on March 22, 2005, the National Amnesty Commission (NAC) is thereby abolished. As
provided therein, the term of the NAC, created under Proclamation No. 347, is thereby
deemed expired in view of the completion of its assigned tasks as provided by Section 4
thereof. All assets, liabilities, choses in action, equipment, facilities, funds, records and
other properties of the NAC are hereby transferred to the Office of the Presidential Adviser
on the Peace Process ("OPAPP"). (Sections 1 and 2 ofE.o. No. 415)
CHAPTER 5
PROBATION