Scribd
Upload
648 views8 pages

Pardon and Voting Rights Case Analysis

The petitioner argued that the defendant, who had been elected mayor, was ineligible due to a previous conviction for estafa. The defendant argued that the absolute pardon he received removed all resulting disabilities from his conviction. The issue was whether a person convicted of a crime against property who received an absolute pardon could vote and hold public office. The Court ruled that an absolute pardon restores political rights for crimes with penalties of one year or more, and that a pardon is also needed to vote for crimes against property with penalties under one year. The defendant was therefore eligible for public office.

Uploaded by

Anthony Rey Bayhon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
648 views8 pages

Pardon and Voting Rights Case Analysis

The petitioner argued that the defendant, who had been elected mayor, was ineligible due to a previous conviction for estafa. The defendant argued that the absolute pardon he received removed all resulting disabilities from his conviction. The issue was whether a person convicted of a crime against property who received an absolute pardon could vote and hold public office. The Court ruled that an absolute pardon restores political rights for crimes with penalties of one year or more, and that a pardon is also needed to vote for crimes against property with penalties under one year. The defendant was therefore eligible for public office.

Uploaded by

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

SIMPLICIO PENDON VS.

JULITO DIASNES
G.R. NO. L-5606, AUGUST 28, 1952
ANTHONY REY P. BAYHON
FACTS

The petitioner want the defendant, who had been elected


municipal mayor of Dumangas, Iloilo be declared ineligible by
reason of a previous conviction for a criminal offense of estafa.
PLAINTIFF PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

The petitioner argued that defendant pardon does not remove


the incapacity or disqualifications as a voter in matters of
convictions of crime against property under section (b) of
Republic Act No. 180.
DEFENDANT RESPONDENT’S
ARGUMENT
The defendant argued even all written evidence was destroyed by
war, the oral evidence is sufficient foundation for the
introduction of secondary evidence of the nature and contents
of the pardon. Moreover, the granted absolute pardon by the
Governor General that given to the defendant removes all
disabilities resulting from conviction.
ISSUE

Whether or not a person convicted of a crime against property


who was granted absolute pardon by the President, is entitled to
vote and hold public position.
PROVISION SUBJECT OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Section 99 (a) (b) of Republic Act No. 180, as amended, which provides:
“Section 99. Disqualifications.- The following persons shall not be qualified to vote:
a. Any person who has been sentenced by final judgement to suffer one year or more of
imprisonment, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.
b. Any person who has been declared by final judgement guilty of any crime against
property. xxx”
RULING
The Court held that there is no conflict between (a) and (b), the paragraph
(b) must be construed in conjunction with paragraph (a). Thus, all persons
convicted of crime of whatever nature and sentenced to one year or more
are disqualified to vote. But it makes two exceptions, to wit: (1) when the
penalty imposed is less than one year and (2) when pardon is granted. It
creates an exception to the exception of paragraph (a) that person
sentenced to less than one year may vote.
RULING

Furthermore, the court said that “absolute pardon for any crime for which one
year of imprisonment or more was meted out restored the prisoner to his
political rights. When the penalty is less than one year, disqualification does not
attach, except when the crime committed is one against property, in which
case the prisoner has to have a pardon”.
The rule that an exception need not be introduced by the word
“except” or “unless”.

You might also like