GR No. 91626​October 3, 1991

FRANKLIN DRILON, SILVESTRE BELLO, AURELIO TRAMPE, petitioners vs.

CA, RODOLFO GANZON, RAUL PAREDES, respondents

FACTS:

In 1973, Raul Paredes and Rodolfo Ganzonwere charged with double murder before Military Commission No. 34 from which the former was acquitted and the latter was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor.Ganzon served sentence until placement on house arrest under guard on March 25, 1978.Ganzon joined the KBL Party in 1985 as campaign manager and was granted pardon by President Marcos on January 27, 1986. In 1988, when administration changed, Justice Secretary Ordonez ordered Fiscal Trampe to conduct preliminary investigation on private respondent for the same charge of double murder. Private respondents’ motions for dismissal were denied despite claims of acquittal and absolute pardon, respectively.

ISSUE:

1.​Whether or not Government may proceed criminally against the private respondents despite a verdict earlier rendered by Military Commission No. 34

2.​Whether or not Ganzon has completed the service of his sentence

3.​Whether or not Ganzon has been pardoned

HELD:

1.​No, the Government cannot. In Tan vs. Barrios, the Court ruled that: Only in particular cases where the convicted person or the State shows that there was serious denial of the Constitutional rights of the accused should the nullity of the sentence be declared and a retrial be ordered. Hence, since neither the privatesrespondents nor the State allege a violation of Constitutional rights, retrial or reinvestigation cannot be reordered.

2.​Yes, Ganzon has completed his service of sentence. In Cruz vsEnrile, the Court held that the petitioners have: the option either to complete the service of their sentence or be tried anew by the civil courts. Ganzon has apparently accepted the option to complete the service of his sentence. Six years of service in the military stock hade before his house arrest and pardon suffice to imply that he was willing to serve his sentence fully. Subsequent release ordered by Pres. Marcos unavoidably commuted Ganzon’zlife imprisonment to 6 years so Ganzon has completed sentence and cannot be reinvestigated.

3.​The issue is unnecessary to consider since the pardon alleged to be subsequently awarded to Ganzon is somewhat irrelevant upon acceptance that his sentence has been commuted or considerably reduced by Pres. Marcos. The PARDONING POWER of the Executive that includes grants of reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures in Art. VII, Sec.19 of the Constitution renders the commutation of Ganzon’s sentence final andunappealable and makes the absolute pardon alleged unnecessary to consider.