Scribd
Upload
108 views2 pages

Mansanto Vs Factoran GR No. 78239 Feb 9, 1989

1. While a pardon forgives guilt and remits punishment, it does not erase the fact that a crime was committed or wipe out the conviction. A pardon implies guilt and does not make the recipient innocent in the eyes of the law. 2. Monsanto is not entitled to backpay for the period of her suspension. A pardon looks to the future and does not provide retrospective relief or require the government to make reparations for past suffering. Anything suffered while judicial proceedings were in effect is presumed to have been rightfully suffered.

Uploaded by

Aldrin Morales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views2 pages

Mansanto Vs Factoran GR No. 78239 Feb 9, 1989

1. While a pardon forgives guilt and remits punishment, it does not erase the fact that a crime was committed or wipe out the conviction. A pardon implies guilt and does not make the recipient innocent in the eyes of the law. 2. Monsanto is not entitled to backpay for the period of her suspension. A pardon looks to the future and does not provide retrospective relief or require the government to make reparations for past suffering. Anything suffered while judicial proceedings were in effect is presumed to have been rightfully suffered.

Uploaded by

Aldrin Morales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Mansanto vs Factoran GR No.

78239 Feb 9, 1989

Facts: 

In 1983, Monsanto was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa thru falsification of public documents.
She was sentenced to jail and to indemnify the government in the sum of P4,892.50. The SC affirmed the
decision. She then filed a motion for reconsideration but while said motion was pending, she was
extended by President Marcos absolute pardon which she accepted (at that time, clemency could be
given even before conviction).

On the strength of such pardon, she wrote the City Treasurer of Calbayog asking for automatic
reinstatement to her position without need of a new appointment since it was still vacant. The letter was
referred to the Ministry of Finance (MF) which at that time had control over the City Treasuries. The
Ministry of Finance ruled in favor of Monsanto but said that appointment was only to retroact from the
date of she was given pardon. Monsanto asked for reconsideration saying that the full pardon wiped out
the crime and thus her service in the government should not be considered to have interrupted. Thus, the
date of her reinstatement should correspond to the date of her preventive suspension; that she is entitled
to backpay for the entire period of her suspension; and that she should not be required to pay the
proportionate share of the amount of P4,892.50.

Monsanto thus filed a petition before the SC. She contends that since the pardon was given when her
case was still pending on appeal before the SC, no final verdict has yet been handed and consequently the
accessory penalty attached to the crime which is forfeiture from public office did not attached. Also she
contends that the pardon given before the final verdict is tantamount to acquittal.

Issues:

1. What is the effect of absolute pardon?

2.  Is Monsanto entitled to backpay?


Held:

1.  While a pardon has generally been regarded as blotting out the existence of guilt so that in the eye of
the law the offender is as innocent as though he never committed the offense, it does not operate for all
purposes. The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies guilt. It does
not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. It does not wash out the
moral stain. It involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness.

2.  No. A pardon looks to the future. It is not retrospective. It makes no amends for the past. It affords no
relief for what has been suffered by the offender. It does not impose upon the government any obligation
to make reparation for what has been suffered. “Since the offense has been established by judicial
proceedings, that which has been done or suffered while they were in force is presumed to have been
rightfully done and justly suffered, and no satisfaction for it can be required.”

You might also like