GR 892; (September, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 892 , September 11, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. JUAN LUNA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Juan Luna was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of attempted abduction. He was convicted and sentenced to prision correccional for one year, eight months, and twenty days, with accessories. Luna appealed the judgment. While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, his counsel presented a public instrument dated May 15, 1902, wherein Tomasa Rivera y Felipe, the widow and mother of the minor victim, Juana Isidro y Rivera (12 years old), granted an express pardon to Juan Luna for the offense committed. The pardon was purportedly granted generously, without consideration or coercion. Based on this instrument, the defendant moved for the extinction of the penal action and the cancellation of his bail bond, invoking Article 448 of the Penal Code. The Solicitor-General opposed the motion, arguing that the pardon was not granted by the injured party herself as required by law.
ISSUE:
Whether the express pardon granted solely by the mother of the minor victim, without the victim’s own pardon, is sufficient to extinguish the penal action against the accused for the crime of attempted abduction under Article 448 of the Penal Code.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the motion and ordered the continuation of the appeal. The Court held that for offenses where the penal action may be extinguished by pardon under the last paragraph of Article 448 of the Penal Code, the express pardon must be granted by the injured party personally. If the injured party is a minor or otherwise incapacitated, the pardon must still originate from her, and the participation of her parents or guardian is necessary to cure the defect in personality, but their pardon alone is insufficient. The pardon cannot be presumed from the acts of the representatives; it can only be presumed in the specific case of marriage between the offender and the injured party. Since the minor victim, Juana Isidro, did not herself grant the pardon, the instrument executed solely by her mother did not comply with the legal requirement and could not extinguish the penal action. The Court cited a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated January 5, 1898, applying the same principle.