SABELLO VS DECS

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this

Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of
all the Members of the Congress.
Facts: Sabello, an elementary school principal and the assistant principal of the Talisay
Brgy. High School together with their barrio captain were charged of the violation of RA
3019(Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). They were both convicted and sentenced 1yr &
disqualification to hold office. Petitioner is alleged that he gravely erred in depositing
840.00 to the City Treasurer's office in the name of Talisay Barrio H.S to cover up for the
teachers salary. The amount of 840 came from the aid given by the Pres. in the amount of
2,000 for each barrio. The Barrio Council believing in good faith that the barrio H.S was a
barrio project therefore it is entitled to its share with the funds given by the pres. Petitioner
then appealed to the C.A of MNL. Court of appeals then modified the penaly by eliminating
the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of 1/2 of the amount
being involved. Petitioner could no longer appeal to the Supreme court so then judgment
became final. Afterwards, the pres granted the petitioner ABSOLUTE PARDON restoring him
full civil and political rights. Petitioner then applied for the reinstatement of his
employment; he was reinatated but not as a Principal rather a classroom teacher. He then
appealed for the relief of the Supreme Court to grant his requesr of being reinstated to his
former position and for the payment of his backwages.
ISSUE: whether petitioner merits reappointment to the position he held prior to his
conviction that of Elementary Principal I.
HELD: The DECS did not act on the request of the petitioner because they contended
through the Sol.Gen that there is no justiceable controversy to be resolved.
The Court believed otherwise.There is here a justiciable controversy. Petitioner claims he
must be restored to the same position he was in before he was convicted on a mere
technical error and for which he was given an absolute pardon, under the circumstances of
this case, if the petitioner had been unfairly deprived of' what is rightfully his, the
discretion is qualified by the requirements of giving justice to the petitioner. It is no
longer a matter of discretion on the part of the appointing power, but discretion
tempered with fairness and justice.
As to the argument that the Department of Education, Culture and Sports cannot be sued,
the only answer is that its officials can be sued for alleged grave errors in their official acts.
Again, We ignore technicality by considering this a suit against the officials of this
government agency.
In Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., 3 this Court held that the absolute disqualification from office
or ineligibility from public office forms part of the punishment prescribed under the penal
code and that pardon frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and
restores him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon restores his eligibility to a public
office it does not entitle him to automatic reinstatement. He should apply for
reappointment to said office.There are no circumstances that would warrant the
diminution in his rank, justice and equity dictate that he be returned to his former position
of Elementary School Principal I and not to that of a mere classroom teacher.

However, the Court cannot grant his prayer for backwages from September 1, 1971 to
November 23, 1982 since in Monsanto 4 this Court said he is not entitled to automatic
reinstatement. Petitioner was lawfully separated from the government service upon his
conviction for an offense. Thus, although his reinstatement had been duly authorized, it did
not thereby entitle him to backwages. Such right is afforded only to those who have been
illegally dismissed and were thus ordered reinstated or to those otherwise acquitted of the
charge against them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the Secretary of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports and/or his duly authorized representative is hereby directed to appoint
petitioner to the position of Elementary School Principal I or it equivalent, without
pronouncement as to cost. This decision is immediately executory.
PEOPLE VS SALLE, JR
Francisco Salle, Jr. and Ricky Mengote were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
each is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay an indemnity.
The appellants seasonably filed their Notice of Appeal. On 24 March 1993, the Court
accepted the appeal. On 6 January 1994, however, appellant Francisco Salle, Jr. filed an
Urgent Motion to Withdraw his Appeal. They were granted a conditional pardon that with
their acceptance of the conditional pardon, the appellants will be released from
confinement, the appellants impliedly admitted their guilt and accepted their sentence,
and hence, the appeal should be dismissed.They were discharged from the New Bilibid
Prison on 28 December 1993. Atty. Lao further informed the Court that appellant Ricky
Mengote left for his province without consulting her. She then prays that the Court grant
Salle's motion to withdraw his appeal and consider it withdrawn upon his acceptance of
the conditional pardon. Mengote has not filed a motion to withdraw his appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Mengotes conditional pardon is valid.
HELD: No. Since pardon is given only to one whose conviction is final, pardon has no effect
until the person withdraws his appeal and thereby allows his conviction to be final and
Mengote has not filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. WHEREFORE, counsel for
accused-appellantRicky Mengote y Cuntado is hereby given thirty (30) days from notice
hereof within which to secure from the latter the withdrawal of his appeal and to submit it
to this Court. The conditional pardon granted the said appellant shall be deemed to take
effect only upon the grant of such withdrawal. In case of non-compliance with this
Resolution, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections must exert every possible
effort to take back into his custody the said appellant, forwhich purpose he may seek the
assistance of the Philippine National Police or the NationalBureau of Investigation.