ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 105674. January 31, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. DIONORO MINIAO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 31 2000.

G.R. No. 105674 (The People of the Philippines vs. Dionoro Miniao alias "Ka Ramil".)

On September 13, 1993,1 Rollo, p. 123. the President of the Philippines granted conditional pardon to accused-appellant Dionoro Miniao alias "Ka Ramil" based on the recommendation of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release or Pardon (hereinafter the Committee). Accused-appellant was released from confinement in San Ramon Penal Farm, Zamboanga City on October 11, 1993.2 Rollo, p. 124.

On July 3, 1995, this Court issued a resolution directing the members of the Committee to justify its recommendation to grant pardon notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal with this Court within ten (10) days from notice.3 Rollo, pp. 130-A - 130-B.

For failure of the Committee to comply with the above resolution, on January 15, 1996, this Court required the Committee to show cause why it should not be disciplinary dealt with.4 Rollo, p. 131. On January 13, 1997, we reiterated this resolution.

However, on March 22, 1999, we set aside the resolution dated January 15, 1996 and all resolutions subsequent thereto,5 Rollo, pp. 162-165. it appearing that the resolutions were directed to nobody in particular and that these resolutions could not be enforced now since the Committee members has changed.

We have already ruled6 People vs. Hinlo, G.R. No. 110035, minute resolution, January 31, 1995. that the practice of processing applications for pardon or parole despite the pendency of appeals to be in clear violation of the law. Our pronouncement seemed to have been ignored because the granting of pardon to those who are not qualified by reason of their pending appeal continued.

In People vs. Francisco Salle, Jr.7 250 SCRA 581, (1995)., we categorically declared that before an appellant may be validly granted pardon, he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal, i.e., the conviction must first be final before parole or pardon may be validly extended.

This ruling, however, cannot be applied in the instant case inasmuch as the President granted conditional pardon to Miniao on September 13, 1993 and the latter was released form confinement on October 11, 1993. The Salle case itself provided that the new rule shall apply to pardons extended after January 31, 1995.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant appeal for having become moot and academic.8 People vs. Hinlo, supra.

Costs de oficio.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE