Title
Monsanto vs. Factoran Jr.
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 78239 Feb 9, 1989
A convicted felon seeks reinstatement to her former position as assistant city
treasurer after being granted an absolute pardon, but the court rules that a
pardon does not automatically restore a convicted felon to public office or exempt
them from civil liabilities imposed by the sentence.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 78239)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case involves Salvacion A. Monsanto, who was convicted by the Sandiganbayan on
March 25, 1983, for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents. She was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from four years, two months,
and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten years and one day of prision
mayor as maximum, and fined P3,500. Additionally, she and her co-accused were
ordered to indemnify the government P4,892.50. Monsanto appealed her conviction to
the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision. While her motion for reconsideration
was pending, she was granted an absolute pardon by President Marcos on December 17,
1984, which she accepted on December 21, 1984. Following the pardon, Monsanto
requested reinstatement to her former position as assistant city treasurer of Calbayog
City. The Ministry of Finance initially ruled in her favor, but upon further review, the
Office of the President, through Deputy Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.,
held that Monsanto was not entitled to automatic reinstatement and must secure a new
appointment. Additionally, she was still liable for the civil indemnity imposed by the
Sandiganbayan. Monsanto then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
1. Is a public officer who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief Executive
entitled to reinstatement to her former position without the need for a new
appointment?
2. Does the absolute pardon exempt the petitioner from the payment of civil indemnity
imposed by the sentence?
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto is not entitled to automatic reinstatement
to her former position as assistant city treasurer without a new appointment.
2. The Court also ruled that the absolute pardon does not exempt Monsanto from the
payment of the civil indemnity imposed by the sentence.
Ratio:
The Court explained that while a pardon may remit all the penal consequences of a
criminal indictment, it does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the
conviction thereof. A pardon implies forgiveness, not forgetfulness, and does not wash
out the moral stain of the crime. The Court emphasized that public offices are intended
for the collective protection, safety, and benefit of the common good and cannot be
compromised to favor private interests. Therefore, a pardon does not ipso facto restore a
convicted felon to public office, although it restores eligibility for appointment to that
office. The Court also clarified that civil liability arising from a crime subsists
notwithstanding the service of the sentence or the grant of a pardon. Such liability can
only be extinguished by causes recognized in the Civil Code, such as payment, loss of
the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and debtor,
compensation, and novation.
