Should persons invoking the benefit of amnesty first admit having committed the crime of which they were accused?

To avail of the benefits of an amnesty proclamation, one must admit his guilt of the offense covered by the proclamation.

It is rank inconsistency for appellant to justify an act, or seek forgiveness for an act which, according to him, he has not committed. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions. The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance, which means that the pleader admits the allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which, if proved, would being the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation. (Vera vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-18184, January 31, 1963)

What is the effect of the grant of amnesty to the conviction of an accused?

The person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. Criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects (Art. 89, par. 3, RPC). Once granted, amnesty is binding and effective. It serves to put an end to the appeal. (People vs. Patriarca, Jr. G.R. No. 135457, September 29, 2000)

What are the limitations on the exercise of the pardoning power of the President?

1. It cannot be granted in cases of impeachment [Sec. 19, Art VII of the Constitution];

2. It cannot be granted in cases of violation of election laws without the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections [Sec. 5, Art IX-C];

3. It cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt (as it would violate separation of powers), or civil contempt (as the State is without interest in the same);

4. It cannot absolve the convict of civil liability [People vs. Nacional];

5. It cannot restore public offices forfeited [Monsanto v. Factoran]

Pardon vs. Amnesty

Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does nor work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon, and it in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence (Article 36, Revised Penal Code). While amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. (People vs. Casido, G.R. No. 116512, March 7, 1997)

AMNESTY	PARDON
Addressed to political offenses	Infractions against the peace of the state
Classes of persons	Individuals
No need for distinct acts of acceptance	Acceptance necessary
Requires concurrence of Congress	Does not require Congressional concurrence
A public act of which the courts may take judicial notice	Private act which must be pleaded and provided
Looks backward and puts into oblivion the offense itself	Looks forward and relieves the pardonee of the consequences of the offense