Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    Torres vs. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Ming
    1) Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. 2) The president cancelled Torres' pardon after the Board of Paroles petitioned for its cancellation. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still on appeal. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed that the grant of a pardon and determination of a breach of its conditions are executive acts not subject to judicial review, and no conviction is needed to determine a breach of a conditional pardon.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Torres vs. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Ming
    105 views1 page
    1) Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. 2) The president cancelled Torres' pardon after the Board of Paroles petitioned for its cancellation. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still on appeal. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed that the grant of a pardon and determination of a breach of its conditions are executive acts not subject to judicial review, and no conviction is needed to determine a breach of a conditional pardon.

    Original Description:

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. 2) The president cancelled Torres' pardon after the Board of Paroles petitioned for its cancellation. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still on appeal. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed that the grant of a pardon and determination of a breach of its conditions are executive acts not subject to judicial review, and no conviction is needed to determine a breach of a conditional pardon.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    105 views1 page

    Torres vs. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Ming
    1) Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa in 1978 and pardoned in 1979 by the president with the condition that he not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres was charged with multiple counts of estafa. 2) The president cancelled Torres' pardon after the Board of Paroles petitioned for its cancellation. Torres appealed, arguing the estafa charges were still on appeal. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed that the grant of a pardon and determination of a breach of its conditions are executive acts not subject to judicial review, and no conviction is needed to determine a breach of a conditional pardon.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Torres vs.

    Gonzales

    152 SCRA 272 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Pardon – Not Subject to Judicial
    Review/Scrutiny

    In 1978, Wilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa. In 1979, he was pardoned by the
    president with the condition that he shall not violate any penal laws again. In 1982, Torres
    was charged with multiple crimes of estafa. In 1986, then Chairman of the Board of Paroles
    Neptali Gonzales petitioned for the cancellation of Torres’ pardon. Hence, the president
    cancelled the pardon. Torres appealed the issue before the Supreme Court averring that the
    Executive Department erred in convicting him for violating the conditions of his pardon
    because the estafa charges against him were not yet final and executory as they were still
    on appeal.

    ISSUE: Whether or not conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is necessary


    before Torres can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his
    conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence.
    HELD: The SC affirmed the following:
    1. The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional
    pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny.
    2. The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and the
    proper consequences of such breach, may be either a purely executive act, not subject to
    judicial scrutiny under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code; or it may be a
    judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under
    Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code. Where the President opts to proceed under Section
    64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a
    subsequent crime is necessary, much less conviction therefor by final judgment of a court,
    in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of his conditional pardon.
    3. Because due process is not semper et ubique judicial process, and because the
    conditionally pardoned convict had already been accorded judicial due process in his trial
    and conviction for the offense for which he was conditionally pardoned, Section 64 (i) of the
    Revised Administrative Code is not afflicted with a constitutional vice.
    In proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to
    have breached the conditions of his pardon, the Executive Department has two options: (i)
    to proceed against him under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code; or (ii) to
    proceed against him under Article 159 of the RPC which imposes the penalty of prision
    correccional, minimum period, upon a convict who “having been granted conditional pardon
    by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon.” Here, the
    President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the Revised
    Administrative Code. That choice is an exercise of the President’s executive prerogative
    and is not subject to judicial scrutiny.

    You might also like