Kapunan Vs CA

Kapunan vs Court of Appeals
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 148213-17 March 13, 2009
EDUARDO E. KAPUNAN, JR. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS
Facts: The petitioners, Edgardo Kapunan and Oscar Legaspi have been charged with the killing
of KMU Chairman Rolando Olalia and his driver Leonor Alay-ay. On June 1986 Olalia and Alay-
ay’s dead body was found. The murder of Olalia is a controversial case during that time, for
Olalia’s profile to be the Chairman of the KMU.
On Nov. 1998, private respondents Feliciano Olalia and Perlina Alay-ay, filed a complaint letter
to Department of Justice for the alleged complex kidnapping and killing of Olalia and Alay-ay,
against Edgardo Kapunan and Oscar Legaspi and other men and officers of Philippine National
Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
Sec. Serafin Cuevas, Secretary of Department of Justice, created a panel which are tasked to
conduct a preliminary investigation on Olalia’s case.
The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss with the Department of Justice on the ground that the
amnesty granted to them by the National Amnesty Commission extinguishes their criminal
liability under Proclamation 347 issued by Pres. Fidel V. Ramos entitled, “Granting of Amnesty
to the rebels, insurgents and all other persons, who may or may be committed crimes against
public order and crimes committed in furtherance of political ends. However, the motion has
been denied, hence this motion for certiorari.
Issues: Whether or not the amnesty granted to Kapunan and Legaspi, extinguishes their
criminal liability in the Olalia case.
Held/Ruling:
The panel created by the Department of Justice refused to consider the defense of Amnesty of
the petitioners on the ground that the document presented pertaining to the Amnesty failed to
show that the Olalia murder case is one of the crimes for which the amnesty was applied for.
The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition, finding no grave of abuse of discretion on the
panel created by the DOJ, the Appelate Court refused to rule on the applicability of Amnesty
issued to Kapunan and Legaspi.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the Amnesty granted to Kapunan
and Legaspi pertains only to the crime against rebellion and does not cover the murder case of
Olalia and Alay-ay.
PURPOSE OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
 The admission that human institution are imperfect and that there are infirmities in the
administration of justice and executive clemency is an instrument for correcting these
infirmities and for mitigating whatever harness might be generated by a too strict
application of the laws.
THE POWER OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IS NON-DELEGABLE POWER AND MUST BE
EXERCISE BY THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
 Cannot be granted before conviction
 Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment
 Cannot be granted for violation of election laws, rules and regulations without the
favourable recommendation of COMELEC
 Granted of amnesty must be with the concurrence of the majority of all members of the
Congress
PARDON NATURE AND LEGAL EFFECTS
 Pardon is an act of grace or an act of pure generosity of the executive and he can give
or withdraw it before the Pardon is completed. No legal power can compel the executive
in giving the Pardon. Pardon requires acceptance for the protection of the welfare of the
recipient.
 Looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which
he has been convicted, that is abolishes or forgives the punishment for the reason it
does not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office or right of suffrage unless
the rights expressly restored by the pardon.
 When the pardon is full, in the eye of the law the person is innocent and as if never
committed the offense, it makes him, as it were, a new man and gives him a new credit
and capacity.
Effects:
 It does not absolve civil liabilities for an offense
 Does not restore public offices already forfeited, although eligibility
AMNESTY- grant of general pardon to a class of political offenders either after conviction or
even before the charges are filed.
OTHER FORMS OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
1. Reprieves
2. Commutations
3. Remission of Fines and forfeitures
A reprieve “postpones the execution of an offense to a future day certain”
commutation is “a remission of a part (or a cutting short) of the punishment; a substitution of a
lesser penalty for the one originally imposed.” (People v. Vera)
Remission of fines and forfeitures entails non-collection of money or property lawfully
adjudged but it does not have the effect of returning property already in the legal possession of
the government or a third person.
Parole" refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he
has served the minimum of his prison sentence;
"Executive Clemency" refers to Reprieve, Absolute Pardon, Conditional Pardon with or
without Parole Conditions and Commutation of Sentence as may be granted by the President of
the Philippines;
Reprieve" refers to the deferment of the implementation of the sentence for an interval of time;
it does not annul the sentence but merely postpones or suspends its execution;
"Commutation of Sentence" refers to the reduction of the duration of a prison sentence of a
prisoner;
"Conditional Pardon" refers to the exemption of an individual, within certain limits or
conditions, from the punishment which the law inflicts for the offense he had committed resulting
in the partial extinction of his criminal liability;
Absolute Pardon" refers to the total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it
is granted without any condition. It restores to the individual his civil and political rights and
remits the penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted;
"Petitioner" refers to the prisoner who applies for the grant of executive clemency or parole;
"Parolee" refers to a prisoner who is released on parole;
"Pardonee" refers to a prisoner who is released on conditional pardon;
"Client" refers to a parolee/pardonee who is placed under supervision of a Probation and
Parole Officer;

Kapunan Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kapunan Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kapunan Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kapunan vs Court of Appeals

You might also like