Pendon vs Diasnes

Facts
 Petitoner sought to have the defendant, who had been elected
mayor of Dumagas, Iloilo in the general election of 1951, declared
ineligible by reason of a previous conviction for a criminal offense
 Julito Diasnes, the defendant was found guilty of Estafa and
sentenced to 1 year and 1 day of imprisonment by the CFI of Iloilo
 Having been released, the defendant alleged that he had been
granted absolute pardon by the Governor General
 Only oral evidence was presented to prove the alleged pardon
 Copies and the original copy were either lost or destroyed during
the last Pacific war.
 Defendant testified that the original copy was burned along with his
house when it was set on fire during the Japanese occupation
 Appellant contends that the pardon of the defendant does not
remove the incapacity or disqualifications as a voter in matters of
convictions against property
 This question stemmed from the apparent ambiguity of Sec. 99 of
RA 180 as amended by RA 599 which provides
o The following persons shall not be qualified to vote

o a) Any person who has been sentenced by final
judgment to suffer one year or more of imprisonment,
such disability not having been removed by plenary
pardon."
o (b) Any person who has been declared by final
judgment guilty of any crime against property."

o (c) Any person who has violated his allegiance

t o t h e R e p u b l i c o f the Philippines."

o (d) Insane or feeble-minded persons."

o (e) Person who can not prepare their ballots

themselves.
Issues
1.) Whether the pardon should stand even if the defendant only
presented oral evidence (Not the real issue in Stat just in case
Miss asked)
2.) Whether the court below erred in not holding that pardon does
not remove the incapacity or disqualifications as a voter in
matters of convictions of crime against property(Paragraph B)
Held
1.) Yes. The court held that the testimonies of the defendant and
the witnesses who claimed to have seen and helped procure the
pardon are enough evidence to prove that the defendant was
really pardoned by the Governor General.

2.) No. The court held that paragraph (B) of RA 180 in no way
violates the pardoning power of the Chief Executive. Paragraph
(b) must be interpreted in conjunction with paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b) modifies that part of paragraph (a), which refers
to sentences for less that a year and NOT that which refers to
the nature of the crime committed. To interpret paragraphs (a)
and (b) together, they should read thus: Absolute pardon for any
crime for which one year of imprisonment or more was given
restores the prisoner to his political rights.

Additional Notes
If Miss asked why should paragraph (b) discriminate against crimes property?
And why should it confine itself to crimes punishable with less than 1 year
imprisonment

Answer
Major Crimes always involve a high degree of moral turpitude. Petty thefts and
petty deceits and embezzlement always involve dishonesty and are
reprehensible, while assaults, battery, violations of municipal ordinance and
traffic regulations are more likely the products of violent passion or emotion,
negligence or ignorance of the law