Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cristobal V Labrador

    Uploaded by

    AbbyElbambo
    116 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Teofilo Santos should not be disqualified from voting under the Commonwealth Act 357 despite his prior conviction for estafa that he received a presidential pardon for. The Court held that the president's power to pardon cannot be restricted by the legislature and that a full pardon blots out the crime and all resulting disabilities, including disqualification from voting based on a conviction. However, one justice dissented, arguing that a pardon does not erase the fact of conviction and that the legislature can impose qualifications on electors, such as prohibiting those convicted of crimes from voting.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Cristobal v Labrador

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that Teofilo Santos should not be disqualified from voting under the Commonwealth Act 357 despite his prior conviction for estafa that he received a presidential pardon for. The Court held that the president's power to pardon cannot be restricted by the legislature and that a full pardon blots out the crime and all resulting disabilities, including disqualification from voting based on a conviction. However, one justice dissented, arguing that a pardon does not erase the fact of conviction and that the legislature can impose qualifications on electors, such as prohibiting those convicted of crimes from voting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views3 pages

    Cristobal V Labrador

    Uploaded by

    AbbyElbambo
    The Supreme Court ruled that Teofilo Santos should not be disqualified from voting under the Commonwealth Act 357 despite his prior conviction for estafa that he received a presidential pardon for. The Court held that the president's power to pardon cannot be restricted by the legislature and that a full pardon blots out the crime and all resulting disabilities, including disqualification from voting based on a conviction. However, one justice dissented, arguing that a pardon does not erase the fact of conviction and that the legislature can impose qualifications on electors, such as prohibiting those convicted of crimes from voting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Cristobal v Labrador | GR No 47941 | December 7, 1940 | En Banc | Laurel, J.

    Article VII, Section 11, Paragraph 6 of Constitution then: The President shall have the
    power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
    conviction, for all offenses, except in cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and with
    such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. He shall have the power to
    grant amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly.

    Doctrine: Subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the President’s pardoning
    power cannot be restricted of controlled by legislative action. An absolute pardon not only blots
    out the crime committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction.

    Nature of Case: Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review decision of Court of First Instance of
    Rizal in election case sustaining Teofilo C. Santos’s retention in list of eligible voters, in light of
    presidential pardon, not withstanding his prior conviction for crime of estafa

    Facts:
     March 5, 1930: CFI of Rizal found Teofilo C. Santos guilty of estafa and sentence him
    to six months of arresto mayor, and order him to pay to Toribio Alarcon and Emilio
    Raymundo P375 and P125 respectively
     December 20, 1930: Confirmed judgment of Conviction
     March 4 to August 18, 1932: Santos confined in Jail of Pasig
     1934 to 1937: Teofilo continued being a registered elector of Malabon, Rizal
     August 22, 1938: Commonwealth Act 357, Election Code, was approved by National
    Assembly. Section 94, Paragraph B, thereof: Disqualified from voting anyone “declared
    by final judgment guilty of any crime against property
     August 15, 1939: Santos requested absolute pardon from president
     December 24, 1939: With recommendation from Secretary of Justice, President grants
    petition, restoring Santos’s "full civil and political rights, except that with respect to the
    right to hold public office or employment, he will be eligible for appointment only to
    positions which are clerical or manual in nature and involving no money or property
    responsibility."
     November 16, 1940: Miguel Cristobal filed for exclusion of Santos from list of voters in
    precint No. 11 of Malabon Rizal on the ground of latter disqualification under Section 94,
    Paragraph B of Election Code
     November 28, 1940: Court below held that the pardon extended by the President in
    favor of the respondent excludes him from disqualification created by New Election Code
     Petitioner:
    o Pardoning power does not apply to legislative prohibitions
    o Pardoning power here is unlawful exercise by executive of legislative functions
    o The respondent already served out his sentence and penalties, there was nothing
    to pardon.

    Issue + Ruling:
     WON Santos should be disqualified as voter through Commonwealth Act 357? (NO)
    o Limitations on Presidential Pardon
     Pardon be exercised after conviction
     Does not extend to cases of impeachment
    o Absent limitations, power of presidential pardon cannot be restricted or controlled
    by legislative action. Sovereign authority awarded to president to pardon
    o An absolute pardon blots out the crime, and also all consequences resulting from
    conviction (not just imprisonment; but all accessory and resultant disabilities)
    o Disqualification, in this case, is based solely on the conviction
    o Although pardon is conditional in the sense of appointment only to clerical
    responsibilities, it is absolute in so far as restoring civil and political rights
    o United States pardoning power does not restore privilege of voting because right
    of suffrage is exclusively in hands of State not Federal Governement
    o Commonwealth Act 357 is not in purview of presidential pardoning power, not
    allowed to impair said power
    o Impairment would result to restoring political privilege only through legislative
    action, which is not contemplated in Constitution
    Disposition:
    Petition Not Granted.
    Dissent:
     Horilleno, M. (Spanish so I really didn’t understand most parts)
    o Presidential pardon should involve forgiveness but not forgetfulness
    o Pardon may relieve disability of fines and forfeitures, but not stain of bad
    character
    o Pardon doesn’t not erase fact of conviction which isn’t reversed or set aside
    o Pardon may be granted, but the fact of prior conviction subsists especially in the
    context of conviction for habitual criminality
    o Common law: once convicted of crime, no longer competent witness
    o Common law: legislature may put absolute tests and debar privileges of electors
    o Primera Conclusion:
     Que el decreto de indulto a favor del recurrido Santos no tenia objeto.
    o Segunda Conclusion:
     Que, si bien el indulto remite el castigo impuesto al reo, no tiene la virtud,
    sin embargo, de borrar la comision del delito y la conviccion del acusado.
    o Tercera Conclusion
     Que el inciso (b) del articulo 94 del Codigo Electoral no es, propiamente
    hablando, una pena ni una incapacidad (disability) resultante de la
    conviccion del recurrido.

    You might also like