G.R. No.

116512 July 30, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LEOPOLDO BACANG @ "POLDO," "Gerry Brako," and "Arnold," FRANCISCO
PALACIOS, @ "Minggoy & Joe," TATA DOE, WILLIAM CASIDO @ "Mario," and
FRANKLIN ALCORIN y ALPARO @ "Arman," and REO DOE, accused.

People of the Philippines v. Leopoldo Bacang

GR Number 116512, July 30, 1996

Facts:

From the judgment of the RTC of Negros Oriental, in Criminal Case No. 397-B, finding
them and co-accused Palacios guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, and
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay, severally,
Php 200,000.00 and Php 25,000.00 as actual damages and for the funeral expenses,
and costs, accused Casido and Alcorin appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a
supplemental notice of appeal on December 8, 1993. Appeal was accepted on
December 7, 1994.

On January 11, 1996, the court received an undated urgent motion to withdraw appeal
from the accused-appellants which did not state any reason therefor. On March 22,
1996, court received a 1st endorsement informing the Court that the accused-appellants
were released on conditional pardon on January 25, 1996.

On May 20, 1996 the court directed Superintendent Venacio Tesoro to submit the
certified true copies of the Conditional Pardon and the release/discharge order. Tesoso
submitted the copies both signed by the President on January 19, 1996 and certificates
of discharge from prison showing they were released on January 25, 1996. Pardons
were granted by virtue of the authority conferred upon the President by the Constitution
and upon the recommendation of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail,
Release, and Pardon.
Issues:

Whether or not conditional pardons can be extended to the accused-appellants during

the pendency of their instant appeal

Ruling:

No. In an earlier decision, People v Hinlo, the Court declared the practice of
processing applications for pardon or parole despite pending appeals to be in clear
violation of law.

In People v Salle, the court declared grant of pardon, whether full or conditional, to an
accused during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction by the trial court shall be
prohibited.

Agencies/instrumentalities must require proof that he has not appealed from his
conviction or that he has withdrawn appeal. And that the ruling fully bind pardons
extended after January 31, 1995 during the pendency of the grantee’s appeal.

Conditional pardons granted in the case are void for having been extended on January
19,

1996 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THEIR INSTANT APPEAL.