Monsanto v. Factoran (1989) | G.R. No.

78239 | February 9, 1989

Petitioner: Salvacion A. Monsanto

Respondent: Fulgencio S. Factoran JR.

FACTS:
• Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto and three other accused of the crime of estafa
through falsification of public documents an-d indemnify the government Php 4,892.50 (balance of the amount
defrauded and pay the costs proportionately.
• December 21, 1984: Petitioner Monsanto was extended an absolute pardon by President Marcos.
• Having been pardoned, petitioner requested that she be restored to her former post as assistant city treasurer
as the position was still vacant.
• Finance Ministry ruled that petitioner may be reinstated to her position without the necessity of a new
appointment
• Petitioner argued she was entitled to the backpay for the entire period of her suspension and that she should
not be made to pay the proportionate share of the amount of Php 4,892.50.
• Factoran (Deputy Exec. Secretary of the Office of the President) said that that acquittal, not absolute pardon, of
a former public officer is the only ground for reinstatement to his former position and entitlement to payment
of his salaries, benefits and emoluments due to him during the period of his suspension pendente lite.
• In fact, in such a situation, the former public official must secure a reappointment before he can reassume his
former position.
• Additionally, pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him
by the sentence.
• Petitioner argued that general rules on pardon cannot apply to her case by reason of the fact that she was
extended executive clemency while her conviction was still pending appeal in this Court.
o There having been no final judgment of conviction, her employment therefore as assistant city treasurer
could not be said to have been terminated or forfeited.
o Without that final judgment of conviction, the accessory penalty of forfeiture of office did not attach
and the status of her employment remained "suspended."

ISSUE + RULING:
 WON a public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardon by the President, is entitled to reinstatement
to her former position without need of a new appointment - NO
 Pardon: act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which
exempts the individual on whom it was bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he
has committed.
 Court cannot perceive how pardon can produce such moral changes with one who has constantly
maintained the mark of a good, law-abiding citizen  Pardon cannot mask the acts constituting the
crime.
 Public offices are intended primarily for the collective protection, safety and benefit of the common
good. To insist on automatic reinstatement because of a mistaken notion that the pardon virtually
acquitted one from the offense of estafa would be grossly untenable.
 A pardon, albeit full and plenary, cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing appointment to
anyone deemed to be of bad character, a poor moral risk, or who is unsuitable by reason of the
pardoned conviction.
 The absolute disqualification or ineligibility from public office forms part of the punishment prescribed
by the Revised Penal Code for estafa through falsification of public documents.
 The pardon granted to petitioner has resulted in removing her disqualification from holding public
employment but it cannot go beyond that. To regain her former post as assistant city treasurer, she
must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment.