G.R. No. 103567 December 4, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO SALLE, JR. Y GERCILLA and RICKY MENGOTE Y CUNTADO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Francisco Salle, Jr. and Ricky Mengote were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the compound crime of murder and destructive arson and each sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They seasonably appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. While their appeal was pending, both appellants were granted conditional pardons by the President and were subsequently released from the New Bilibid Prison. Salle filed a motion to withdraw his appeal, which the Court granted. Mengote, however, did not file any such motion to withdraw his appeal.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is whether a conditional pardon granted by the President to an accused during the pendency of his appeal from a judgment of conviction is valid and enforceable.

RULING

No, the conditional pardon granted to appellant Ricky Mengote is unenforceable. The Supreme Court, through Justice Davide, Jr., ruled that under Section 19, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution , the President’s power to grant pardon may only be exercised “after conviction by final judgment.” A judgment becomes final only when the accused has not appealed within the reglementary period, or when the appeal has been resolved with finality. Since Mengote’s conviction was not final due to the pending appeal, the grant of the conditional pardon was constitutionally infirm and therefore invalid. The Court clarified that an appellant must first withdraw his appeal or await its final resolution before a pardon can be validly extended. The practice of processing pardon applications despite a pending appeal was ordered to be abated, as it constitutes a derogation of judicial prerogative and leads to incongruous situations where an appellant may be acquitted on appeal after having accepted a pardon.