8/7/2019 monsantovfactoranjr

1/1

SALVACION A. MONSANTO vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR.G.R. No. 78239 February 9, 1989

Facts: Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto (then assistanttreasurer of Calbayog City) of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification o

f public documents. Monsanto appealed her conviction to this Court which subsequently affirmed the same. She then filed a motion for reconsideration but while said motion was pending, she was extended then President Marcos absolute pardon which she accepted.

Petitioner wrote the Calbayog City treasurer requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant city treasurer since the same was still vacant. This was referred to the Ministry of Finance, which has the power of appointment of treasurers, for resolution. The Ministry decided that she be reinstated

without need of a new appointment but she has to settle the required indemnityin favor of the government and the cost of litigation.

She appealed to this decision so this was now elevated to the Office ofthe President. Executive Secretary Fulgencio Factoran, Jr. held that acquittal,not absolute pardon, of a former public officer is the only ground for reinstatement to his former position and entitlement to payment of his salaries, benefits

and emoluments due to him during the period of his suspension pendente lite.Petitioner filed the present petition and her ground is that when pardonwas issued before the final verdict of guilt (since the appeal was then pending

), it was an acquittal because there was no offense to speak of. In effect, thePresident has declared her not guilty of the crime charged and has accordingly dismissed the same.

Issue: Whether or not a public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardonby the Chief Executive, is entitled to reinstatement to her former position wit

hout need of a new appointment.

Held: No. The very act of forgiveness implies the commission of wrong, and that wrong has been established by the most complete method known to modern civilization. Pardons may relieve from the disability of fines and forfeitures attendant upon a conviction, but they cannot erase the stain of bad character, which has

been definitely fixed. We do not subscribe to the fictitious belief that pardonblots out the guilt of an individual and that once he is absolved, he should betreated as if he were innocent.

Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of the conviction although such pardon undoubtedly restores his eligibility for appointment to that office.

The absolute disqualification or ineligibility from public office formspart of the punishment prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for estafa thru falsification of public documents. when her guilt and punishment were expunged by her pardon, this particular disability was likewise removed. Henceforth, petitione

r may apply for reappointment to the office which was forfeited by reason of herconviction. And in considering her qualifications and suitability for the public post, the facts constituting her offense must be and should be evaluated and taken into account to determine ultimately whether she can once again be entrusted with public funds. She must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure requiredfor a new appointment.

Pardon - an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the executionof the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the pun

ishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, thoughofficial act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whosebenefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the Court. A pardon

is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not c

omplete without acceptance.(LAMIGO)