The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Deputy Executive Secretary Factoian that Salvacion Nonsato, who was convicted of estafa but later pardoned, was not entitled to automatic reinstatement to her former position as assistant treasurer. While a pardon removes penalties and disabilities, it does not restore a legal office already forfeited, and Nonsato would need to secure a new appointment. The Court also held that Nonsato's civil liability for the damages arising from the crime could only be extinguished through the means recognized in the Civil Code, not through the pardon.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Deputy Executive Secretary Factoian that Salvacion Nonsato, who was convicted of estafa but later pardoned, was not entitled to automatic reinstatement to her former position as assistant treasurer. While a pardon removes penalties and disabilities, it does not restore a legal office already forfeited, and Nonsato would need to secure a new appointment. The Court also held that Nonsato's civil liability for the damages arising from the crime could only be extinguished through the means recognized in the Civil Code, not through the pardon.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Deputy Executive Secretary Factoian that Salvacion Nonsato, who was convicted of estafa but later pardoned, was not entitled to automatic reinstatement to her former position as assistant treasurer. While a pardon removes penalties and disabilities, it does not restore a legal office already forfeited, and Nonsato would need to secure a new appointment. The Court also held that Nonsato's civil liability for the damages arising from the crime could only be extinguished through the means recognized in the Civil Code, not through the pardon.
- Naich 2S, 198S, Sanuiganbayan convicteu petitionei Salvacion Nonsato (assistant tieasuiei of Calbayog City) anu thiee otheis of the complex ciime of estafa thiu falsification of public uocuments. - Nonsato appealeu hei conviction to the Supieme Couit, which subsequently affiimeu the same. - She then fileu a motion foi ieconsiueiation but while saiu motion was penuing, she was extenueu on Bec. 17, 1984 by then Pies. Naicos an ABS0L0TE PARB0N, which she accepteu on Bec. 21, 1984. Because of the saiu paiuon, Nonsato wiote to the Calbayog City Tieasuiei iequesting that she be iestoieu to hei foimei post as assistant tieasuiei since the position was vacant. - Nonsato's lettei-iequest was then iefeiieu to the Ninistiy of Finance in accoiuance with the Local uoveinment Coue with states that the powei of appointment of tieasuieis was tiansfeiieu fiom the city goveinment to saiu Ninistiy. - Naich 1, 198S, the Finance Ninistiy iuleu that petitionei may be ieinstateu to hei position without the necessity of a new appointment not eailiei than the uate she was extenueu the absolute paiuon. The Ninistiy also uiiecteu the city tieasuiei to see to it that the amount, which the Sanuiganbayan hau iequiieu the petitionei to pay, be inuemnifieu. - Apiil 17, 198S, Nonsato stiesses that the full paiuon bestoweu on hei has wipeu out the ciime, which implies that hei seivice in the goveinment has nevei been inteiiupteu anu theiefoie the uate of hei ieinstatement shoulu coiiesponu to the uate of hei pieventive suspension. She also claims that she is entitleu to backpay foi the entiie peiiou of hei suspension anu that she shoulu be iequiieu to pay the fine. - Bowevei, on Apiil 1S, 1986, then Beputy Exec. Secietaiy, Fulgenio S. Factoian, }i. uisagiees with both the Ninistiy of Finance anu Nonsato, because, as boine out by the iecoius, petitionei was convicteu of the ciime foi which she was accuseu. Be helu that using pievious couit iulings that acquittal, not absolute paiuon, of a foimei public officei is the only giounu foi ieinstatement to his foimei position anu entitlement to payment of his salaiies, benefits, anu emoluments uue to him uuiing the peiiou of his suspension penuente lite. Bence, this petition of Nonsato against Beputy Exec. Sec. Factoian.
8--137
WN Salvacion Nonsato, who has been gianteu an absolute paiuon by the Chief Executive, is entitleu to ieinstatement to hei foimei position.
93#:7 N0, the Supieme Couit helu that Salvacion Nonsato is N0T ENTITLEB to an automatic ieinstatement.
;".&'7 The Supieme Couit affiims the uecision helu by Beputy Exec. Secietaiy Factoian, which states: "In line with the goveinment's ciusaue to iestoie absolute honesty in public seivice, the 0ffice auopts, as a juiiuical guiue (Niianua v. Impeiial, 77 Phil. 1966), the Resolution of the Sanuiganbayan, 2nu Bivision, in People v. Lising, Ciim. Case No. 667S, 0ctobei 4, 198S, that acquittal, not absolute paiuon, of a foimei public officei is the only giounu foi ieinstatement to his foimei position anu entitlement to payment of his salaiies, benefits anu emoluments uue to him uuiing the peiiou of his suspension penuente lite."
Paiuon iemoves all penalties anu legal uisabilities but it uoes not iestoie legal office alieauy foifeiteu. Since, howevei, hei uisqualification has been iemoveu, it qualifies hei to apply foi a new appointment. In fact, in such a situation, the foimei public official must secuie a ieappointment befoie he can ieassume his foimei position.
Petitionei's theoiy of paiuon cannot apply to hei case by ieason of the fact that she was extenueu executive clemency while hei conviction was still penuing appeal in this Couit. Baving no final juugment of conviction, hei employment theiefoie as assistant city tieasuiei coulu not have been teiminateu oi foifeiteu. In othei woius, N0NSAT0 v. FACT0RAN }R. u.R. No. 782S9 (Febiuaiy 9, 1989) BIuEST
without that final juugment of conviction, the accessoiy penalty of foifeituie of office uiu not attach anu the status of hei employment iemaineu "suspenueu."
Noie impoitantly, when paiuon was issueu befoie the final veiuict of guilt, it was an acquittal because theie was no offense to speak of. In effect, the Piesiuent has ueclaieu hei not guilty of the ciime chaigeu anu has accoiuingly uismisseu the same.
Finally, petitionei has sought exemption fiom the payment of the inuemnity imposeu upon hei by the sentence. The Couit cannot oblige hei. Civil liability aiising fiom ciime is goveineu by the Reviseu Penal Coue. It subsists notwithstanuing seivice of sentence, oi foi any ieason the sentence is not seiveu by paiuon, amnesty oi commutation of sentence. Petitionei's civil liability may only be extinguisheu\by the same causes iecognizeu in the Civil Coue, namely: payment, loss of the thing uue, iemission of the uebt, meigei of the iights of cieuitoi anu uebtoi, compensation anu novation.
<&-='-&.&'(7
WBEREF0RE, the assaileu iesolution of foimei Beputy Executive Secietaiy Fulgencio S. Factoian, }i., uateu Apiil 1S, 1986, is AFFIRNEB. No costs.