Scribd
Upload
171 views1 page

Pendon v. Diasnes 91 Phil. 848

The petitioner sought to have the respondent, who had been elected municipal mayor, declared ineligible due to a previous conviction for estafa in 1932 for which he served time. The respondent claimed he received an absolute pardon from the Governor General in 1934, but could only provide oral evidence as documents were unavailable due to war. The court found the evidence of pardon to be conclusive and ruled that an absolute pardon not only erases the crime but also removes all resulting disabilities, so the respondent's prior conviction did not render him ineligible for elected office. The lower court's decision in favor of the respondent was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Nishit Acherzee Palash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
171 views1 page

Pendon v. Diasnes 91 Phil. 848

The petitioner sought to have the respondent, who had been elected municipal mayor, declared ineligible due to a previous conviction for estafa in 1932 for which he served time. The respondent claimed he received an absolute pardon from the Governor General in 1934, but could only provide oral evidence as documents were unavailable due to war. The court found the evidence of pardon to be conclusive and ruled that an absolute pardon not only erases the crime but also removes all resulting disabilities, so the respondent's prior conviction did not render him ineligible for elected office. The lower court's decision in favor of the respondent was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Nishit Acherzee Palash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SIMPLICIO PENDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JULITO DIASNES, Respondent-Appellee. | G.R. No. L-5606.

August 28, 1952.

FACTS:

Petitioner appealed for a quo warranto proceeding instituted in the CFI of Iloilo. He sought to
have the defendant, who had been elected municipal mayor of Dumangas, Iloilo, in the general election
of November 13, 1951, declared ineligible by reason of a previous conviction for a criminal offense. It is
admitted that the Respondent, was found guilty of estafa and sentenced to one year and one day of
imprisonment by the CFI of Iloilo in 1932, a sentence which was fully extinguished and was thereafter
released. But the Respondent alleged that he had been granted absolute pardon by the Governor
General sometime in 1934. Only oral evidence was presented to prove the alleged pardon, as the
original and copies of it, were said to have been unavailable, due to the effects of war.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent is ineligible to be elected as Municipal Mayor because of his


previous conviction of Estafa, that was later extinguished by an absolute pardon. (No)

RULING:

These findings are conclusive as far as this court is concerned. The Court believed that executive
clemency was extended to the Respondent, the pardon could not have been other than plenary and
absolute, considering the purpose for which it was issued, namely: to enable the beneficiary to exercise
the right of suffrage.

In the case of Cristobal v. Labrador, 71 Phil., 34, the court held that "An absolute pardon not
only blots out the crime committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction," and that,
"when granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of
the consequences of conviction."

Wherefore, the decision of the lower court is Affirmed with costs against the Petitioner.

You might also like