Monsanto vs.

Factoran
GR No. 78239
Ponente: Fernan
Digest by pinakapogi sa buong mundo

DOCTRINE: An executive clemency does not absolve the guilt of the accused; it merely frees the individual from
penalties and legal disabilities, and restores him to all civil rights. Pardon implies there is guilt, only that it has been
forgiven but not forgotten (such flowery language is credited to the Court and not me hahaha).

FACTS: 1983 the Sandiganbayan convicted Monsanto of estafa through falsification of public documents. She
appealed to the Supreme Court which affirmed the Sandiganbayans decision so she filed an MR. Pending resolution of
the MR, Marcos extended to her an absolute pardon.

Because of this, she requested the Calbayog City treasurer to restore her to her former post; upon referral to the
Ministry of Finance, the latter held that Monsanto may be reinstated without necessity of a new appointment. The
pardon, in effect, has wiped out her crime and her service in government has never been interrupted.

When the Ministry of Finance referred it to the Office of the President, Deputy ES Factoran held that only acquittal and
not pardon is a ground for reinstatement so Monsanto must secure a re-appointment.

According to petitioner: being extended executive clemency while her appeal was pending, her employment has not
been forfeited or terminated. Without the final judgment of conviction, accessory penalty of forfeiture of office did not
attach and status of her employment was suspended. A pardon prior to the final verdict of guilt is an acquittal so there
is no offense to speak of. In short, not guilty.

ISSUE: WON erring public officer granted absolute pardon is entitled to automatic reinstatement?

HELD/RATIO: NO. Prior to the 1981 amendments to the 1973 Constitution, pardon could only be granted after final
conviction; 1981 provisions relaxed this rule allowing clemency even before conviction. Under the 1987 Constitution,
the previous strict rule was reinstated but in the present case, it does not matter since the result will be the same.

Contrary to existing jurisprudence, pardon should not be given sweeping effect as to blot out the existence of guilt
and makes him a new man. A pardon is prospective, not retrospective. A pardon does not blot out the guilt of the
accused; a pardon does not imply that the person has undergone moral changes as to equate a pardoned person with
an innocent man.

Pardon does not bring back lost honesty, integrity, or fair dealing. Therefore, pardon does not ipso facto restore a
convicted felon to original public office but merely restores eligibility; thus, a re-appointment is a pre-requisite to
assuming the same public office.