Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

People of the Philippines v. Leopoldo Bacang

GR Number 116512
Petition: Petition for certiorari
Plaintiff-Apellee: People of the Philippines
Accused: LEOPOLDO BACANG @ "POLDO," "Gerry Brako," and "Arnold," FRANCISCO
PALACIOS, @ "Minggoy & Joe," TATA DOE, WILLIAM CASIDO @ "Mario," and
FRANKLIN ALCORIN y ALPARO @ "Arman," and REO DOE
Accused-Appellants: William Casido and Franklin Alcorin
Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Date: July 30, 1996
Facts:
From the judgment of the RTC of Negros Oriental, in Criminal Case No. 397-B, finding them
and co-accused Palacios guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, and sentencing each of them
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay, severally, Php 200,000.00 and Php 25,000/00
as actual damages and for the funeral expenses, and costs, accused Casido and Alcorin appealed
to the Supreme Court by filing a supplemental notice of appeal on December 8, 1993. Appeal
was accepted on December 7, 1994.
On January 11, 1996, the court received an undated urgent motion to withdraw appeal from the
accused-appellants which did not state any reason therefor. On March 22, 1996, court received a
1st indorsement informing the Court that the accused-appellants were released on conditional
pardon on January 25, 1996.
On May 20, 1996 the court directed Superintendent Venacio Tesoro to submit the certified true
copies of the Conditional Pardon and the release/discharge order. Tesoso submitted the copies
both signed by the President on January 19, 1996 and certificates of discharge from prison
showing they were released on January 25, 1996. Pardons were granted by virtue of the
authority conferred upon the President by the Constitution and upon the recommendation
of the Presidential Committee for the Grant of Bail, Release, and Pardon.
Issues:
Whether or not conditional pardons can be extended to the accused-appellants during the
pendency of their instant appeal.
Ruling:
No. In an earlier decision, People v Hinlo, the Court declared the practice of processing
applications for pardon or parole despite pending appeals to be in clear violation of law. In
People v Salle, the court declared grant of pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused
during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction by the trial court shall be prohibited.
Agencies/instrumentalities must require proof that he has not appealed from his conviction or
that he has withdrawn appeal. And that the ruling fully bind pardons extended after January 31,
1995 during the pendency of the grantees appeal.

Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

Conditional pardons granted in the case are void for having been extended on January 19,
1996 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THEIR INSTANT APPEAL.
Dispositive:
The accused-appellants urgent motion to withdraw appeal is denied. Bureau of Corrections is
directed to effect the re-arrest of the accused-appellants Casido and Alcorin, who shall be reconfined at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa within 60 days from notice thereof.
The court further resolves to require the officers of the Presidential committee for grant of bail,
release, and pardon to show cause within 30 days why they should not be held in contempt of
court for acting on and favorably recommending approval of the applications for the pardon of
the accused-appellants despite the pendency of their appeal.