Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    PP vs. Nacional, GR Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995 Facts

    Uploaded by

    hanah bahnana
    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to conditional pardons: 1) The PP vs. Nacional case ruled that a conditional pardon does not exempt individuals from paying civil indemnity for their crimes. 2) The Torres case ruled that an individual whose conditional pardon was revoked after breaching conditions could not avail of a writ of habeas corpus. 3) The People vs. Patriarca case ruled that an amnesty granted to an individual by the National Amnesty Board was binding and effective in extinguishing criminal liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PP vs. Nacional, GR Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995 Facts

    Uploaded by

    hanah bahnana
    21 views2 pages
    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to conditional pardons: 1) The PP vs. Nacional case ruled that a conditional pardon does not exempt individuals from paying civil indemnity for their crimes. 2) The Torres case ruled that an individual whose conditional pardon was revoked after breaching conditions could not avail of a writ of habeas corpus. 3) The People vs. Patriarca case ruled that an amnesty granted to an individual by the National Amnesty Board was binding and effective in extinguishing criminal liability.

    Original Title

    39-41 Undag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to conditional pardons: 1) The PP vs. Nacional case ruled that a conditional pardon does not exempt individuals from paying civil indemnity for their crimes. 2) The Torres case ruled that an individual whose conditional pardon was revoked after breaching conditions could not avail of a writ of habeas corpus. 3) The People vs. Patriarca case ruled that an amnesty granted to an individual by the National Amnesty Board was binding and effective in extinguishing criminal liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views2 pages

    PP vs. Nacional, GR Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995 Facts

    Uploaded by

    hanah bahnana
    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases related to conditional pardons: 1) The PP vs. Nacional case ruled that a conditional pardon does not exempt individuals from paying civil indemnity for their crimes. 2) The Torres case ruled that an individual whose conditional pardon was revoked after breaching conditions could not avail of a writ of habeas corpus. 3) The People vs. Patriarca case ruled that an amnesty granted to an individual by the National Amnesty Board was binding and effective in extinguishing criminal liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PP vs. Nacional, GR Nos.

    111294-95, September 7, 1995

    Facts:

    Few days before February 21, 1985, the organization of the six accused, who were
    members of CPP-NPA, had a pulong-pulong at Barangay Lacag, Daraga, Albay for the
    purpose of identifying suspected informers, Quirino and Joel Lagason, of the military
    whom they perceive as posing a threat to the NPAs's operation within the vicinity. On
    February 21, 1985, Quirino was shot by Walter Nacional and Joel was shot by Absalon
    Millamina. Walter Nacional, Zacarias Militante and Efren Musa claimed that the
    charges against them were “political in nature " committed while they were members of
    the New People's Army (NPA). As political prisoners, they applied for and were
    recommended by then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon for conditional pardon by
    the President of the Philippines. On February 1, 1995, Rudy Luces also moved to
    withdraw his appeal for becoming moot and academic.  He claimed that he had been
    granted conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines and had been released
    from prison per instruction.

    Issue:

    Does the conditional pardon and consequent dismissal of the appeals of the accused
    exempt them from payment of the civil indemnity?

    Ruling:

    No. The court ruled that the grant of conditional pardon and the consequent dismissal of
    the appeals of Walter Nacional, Zacarias Militante, Efren Musa and Rudy Luces does
    not exempt them from payment of the civil indemnity. A conditional pardon, when
    granted, does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime.

    Torres v. Director, Bureau of Corrections, GR No. 122338, December 29, 1995

    FACTS:

    Wilfredo Torres was convicted of two counts of estafa and sentenced to serve a prison
    term up to November 02, 2000. He was granted pardon on the condition that he will “not
    again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines." Such pardon was later cancelled
    on the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole after he was charged of
    multiple counts of estafa.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not a convict who breached his conditional pardon may avail of the writ of
    habeas corpus.

    HELD:

    NO. Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person’s liberty has been judicially
    adjudged as illegal or unlawful. The incarceration of Torres remains legal considering
    that, were it not for the grant of conditional pardon which had been revoked because of
    a breach thereof, the determination of which is beyond judicial scrutiny, he would have
    served his final sentence for his final conviction until November 02, 2000. Petition for
    habeas corpus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    People vs. Patriarca, GR No. 13457, September 29, 2000

    Facts:

    Patriarca was charged with the crime of murder for the death of Alfredo Arevalo. He was
    also charged with murder for the killing of one Rudy de Borja and a certain Elmer. The
    RTC found him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 
    Patriarca applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 724. His application was
    favorably granted by the National Amnesty Board concluding that his activities were
    done in pursuit of his political beliefs.

    Issue:

    Whether or not grant of amnesty upon accused-appellant Jose N. Patriarca, Jr. is


    binding and effective.

    HELD:

    Yes. The Court takes judicial notice of the grant of amnesty upon accused-appellant
    Jose N. Patriarca, Jr. Once granted, it is binding and effective.  Amnesty commonly
    denotes a general pardon to rebels for their treason or other high political offenses, or
    the forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the subjects of another, who have
    offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Revised
    Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which
    completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.

    You might also like