PEOPLE vs.

WILLIAM CASIDO
G.R. No. 116512 || March 7, 1997 || DAVIDE, JR., J.
(Amnesty)
FACTS:
 In its Resolution on July 30 1996, the SC ruled the “conditional pardons granted to William
Casido and Franklin Alcorin are void for having been extended on 19 January 1996 during the
pendency of their appeal”
o Ordered the re-arrest of accused-appellants Casido and Alcorin, and required the
Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon (PCGBRP) to show
cause why they should not be held in contempt for acting on and favorably
recommending approval the application for pardon of accused-appellants despite the
pendency of their appeal
 In a comment for the PCGBRP, two members of their Secretariat, Assistant Chief Prosecutor
Mariano and Solicitor in the OSG Ballacillo submitted the following explanation:
o President constituted the PCGBRP on August 11 1992 to establish guidelines for the
grant of bail, release, or pardon of persons convicted of crimes against national security
and public order.
o Those charged can establish by sufficient evidence that they have actually committed any
of the crimes enumerated may apply for possible grant of bail, release or pardon. A
Secretariat was also constituted and tasked to process and evaluate applications of those
desiring pardon or recommended for release or bail
o In the processing and evaluation of the applications, it was the agreement of Secretariat
and counsels who are usually the lawyers of NGOs that simultaneous with the processing
of applications, motions for the withdrawal of the applicant’s appeals must be filed with
the SC
o Applications for conditional pardon were recommended to the president and was signed
by the President on January 19 1996 and subject prisoners were released on January 25
1996
o Prior to their release, petitioners Casido and Alcorin filed a “Motion to Withdraw
Appeal” which was received by the SC on January 11, 1996 however the PCGBRP failed
to verify whether the counsel of the accused had also withdrawn their appeal or that the
NGO lawyers filed in their behalf a motion to withdraw appeal
o It was upon honest belief of Secretariat that NGO lawyers would perform their agreed
undertaking so the Secretariat endorsed applications for conditional pardon of the subject
prisoners for favorable action by the Committee and then by the President
o Explained that the Secretariat was only prompted to act and to avoid repetition of grant of
presidential clemency under similar circumstances, shall require applicants for any
executive relief to show proof that their appeal, has been withdrawn and the withdrawal
has been also approved before acting on their applications
 SC required the submission of members of Secretariat who participated in deliberation on the
accused-appellants application for pardon and recommended the grant thereof
o February 9-11, 1995 a Working Group was constituted to investigate cases of prisoners
who are alleged to have committed crime in pursuit of political objectives, among these
cases were those of Casido and Alcorin
o After such the Working Group issued Resolution No. 1 stating that “prisoners be
recommended to the Secretariat of PCGBRP”
o The recommendations of the Working Group and the Secretariat were based on the
undertaking of those representing political prisoners who promised that the corresponding
withdrawals of appeal would be filed with SC and other courts concerned (this
undertaking of NGOs was verbal and not made in writing)
o They state that they acted in good faith and when they made the recommendations or
issued Resolution No. 1 were not aware of the relevant rulings of SC, and that they were
pressed on by the members of the NGOs to act on certain applications, and that they
made clear to those following up that the appropriate withdrawal of appeals should be
filed
 o They did not secure written commitment for the withdrawal of appeal by accused Alcorin
and Casido before their applications for pardon were reviewed, because they believed in
good faith that the promise of those who followed up would be complied with
 The SC received a letter from the Chairman of the National Amnesty Commission, informing the
court that the applications for amnesty of accused-appellants Casido and Alcorin were “favorably
acted” upon by the National Amnesty Commission (NAC)
o That they were indeed confirmed members of CPP/NPA/NDF whose killing of
Victoriano mapa was committed in pursuit of their political beliefs
 Solicitor General: “in an effort to seek their release at the soonest possible time, the accused-
appellants applied for pardon before the PCGBRP and amnesty before the NAC”
o Since amnesty may be granted before or after the institution of the criminal
prosecution or even after conviction, amnesty granted to accused-appellants
rendered moot and academic the question of premature pardon granted to them

Amnesty vs. Pardon

 Amnesty: Proclamation of Chief Executive w/ concurrence of Congress, a public act of which
courts should take judicial notice
o Granted to classes of persons who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or
after the institution of the criminal prosecution or sometimes after conviction
o Looks backward and abolishes the offense itself, person released with amnesty stands
before the law as though he had committed no offense
 Pardon: granted by the Chief Executive and is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by
the person pardoned
o Granted after conviction, looks forward and relieves offender from consequences of
offense but does not exempt one from paying of civil indemnity
o Does not restore right to hold public office, or right to suffrage, unless it is expressly
restored in terms of pardon

ISSUE/S:
 W/N the release of Casido and Alcorin is justified by the pardon -- NO
 W/N the release of Casido and Alcorin is valid -- YES

HOLDING:
 The release of Casido and Alcorin was VALID solely on the ground of amnesty.

RATIO:
 The explanation of the Secretariat of PCGBRP is unsatisfactory in saying that its members were
unaware of the resolutions of SC in earlier cases, and it already stressed the necessity of a final
judgment before parole or pardon could be extended
 The members of Secretariat implied that they were all at the time aware that a pardon could only
be granted after conviction by final judgment as evidenced by the requirement from lawyers of
applicants to file motions of withdrawal from SC of applicants appeals, they cannot plead
ignorance
 Pardon is void for having been extended during the pendency of the appeal or before
conviction by final judgment, but the grant of amnesty voluntarily applied under
Proclamation No. 347 was valid