Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Cristobal Vs Labrador 71 Phil 34

    Uploaded by

    Louise Bolivar Dadivas
    This case involves Teofilo Santos, who was convicted of estafa in 1930 but continued to be a registered voter. The 1938 Election Code disqualified those convicted of crimes against property from voting. Santos applied for and received a presidential pardon restoring his civil and political rights, except for certain public offices. Petitioner Miguel Cristobal argued Santos should be removed from the voter rolls due to the Election Code disqualification. The court held that the presidential pardon power is limited only by the constitution, and a pardon removes all legal consequences of a conviction, including disqualifications from voting. Therefore, the pardon restored Santos' right to vote.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cristobal Vs Labrador 71 Phil 34

    Uploaded by

    Louise Bolivar Dadivas
    139 views2 pages
    This case involves Teofilo Santos, who was convicted of estafa in 1930 but continued to be a registered voter. The 1938 Election Code disqualified those convicted of crimes against property from voting. Santos applied for and received a presidential pardon restoring his civil and political rights, except for certain public offices. Petitioner Miguel Cristobal argued Santos should be removed from the voter rolls due to the Election Code disqualification. The court held that the presidential pardon power is limited only by the constitution, and a pardon removes all legal consequences of a conviction, including disqualifications from voting. Therefore, the pardon restored Santos' right to vote.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Cristobal vs Labrador 71 Phil 34

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Teofilo Santos, who was convicted of estafa in 1930 but continued to be a registered voter. The 1938 Election Code disqualified those convicted of crimes against property from voting. Santos applied for and received a presidential pardon restoring his civil and political rights, except for certain public offices. Petitioner Miguel Cristobal argued Santos should be removed from the voter rolls due to the Election Code disqualification. The court held that the presidential pardon power is limited only by the constitution, and a pardon removes all legal consequences of a conviction, including disqualifications from voting. Therefore, the pardon restored Santos' right to vote.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    139 views2 pages

    Cristobal Vs Labrador 71 Phil 34

    Uploaded by

    Louise Bolivar Dadivas
    This case involves Teofilo Santos, who was convicted of estafa in 1930 but continued to be a registered voter. The 1938 Election Code disqualified those convicted of crimes against property from voting. Santos applied for and received a presidential pardon restoring his civil and political rights, except for certain public offices. Petitioner Miguel Cristobal argued Santos should be removed from the voter rolls due to the Election Code disqualification. The court held that the presidential pardon power is limited only by the constitution, and a pardon removes all legal consequences of a conviction, including disqualifications from voting. Therefore, the pardon restored Santos' right to vote.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Cristobal v.

    Labrador

    Summary Cases:

    Cristobal vs. Labrador 71 Phil 34

    Subject: Presidential pardon, Restoration of civil and political rights

    Facts:

    This is a petition on certiorari to review the decision of the CFI of Rizal sustaining the right of Teofilo
    Santos to remain in the list of registered voters in Malabon, Rizal. In 1930, the court found Santos guilty
    of the crime of estafa with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accordingly, he was confined
    in the provincial jail of Pasig, Rizal. Notwithstanding his conviction, Santos continued to be a registered
    elector, and seated as the municipal president of said municipality.

    In 1938, the Election Code was approved which disqualified Santos from voting for having been
    declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against property. In view of this provision, Santos applied
    to the President for an absolute pardon. The pardonwas granted restoring Santos to his full civil and
    political rights, except that with respect to the right to hold public office or employment, he will be eligible
    for appointment only to positions which are clerical or manual in nature and involving no money or
    property responsibility. In 1940, petitioner Miguel Cristobal filed a petition for the exclusion of Santos
    from the list of voters on the ground that the latter is disqualified under the Election Code. The lower
    court however ruled that the pardon granted to Santos had the effect of removing the disqualification. In
    the present petition, Critobal raises the argument that the pardoning power of the Chief Executive does
    not apply to legislative prohibitions.

    Held:

    The Constitutional limitations on the pardoning power

    1. Article VII of our Constitution provides two limitations upon the exercise of this constitutional
    prerogative by the Chief Executive, namely: (a) that the power be exercised after conviction; and (b) that
    such power does not extend cases of impeachment.

    2. Subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the pardoning power cannot be restricted or
    controlled by legislative action. The pardon extended in favor of Santos had the effect of excluding the
    him from the disqualification created by the New Election Code.
    | Page 1 of 2
    Effects of pardon

    3. Imprisonment is not the only punishment which the law imposes. There are accessory and resultant
    disabilities, and the pardoning power likewise extends to such disabilities.

    4. When granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of
    the consequences of conviction. It is absolute insofar as it restores the respondent to full civil and
    political rights.

    5. The suggestion that the disqualification in the New Election Code does not fall within the purview of
    the pardoning power of the Chief Executive, would lead to the impairment of the pardoning power of the
    President, not contemplated in the Constitution.

    | Page 2 of 2

    You might also like