People v. Luna
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves Juan Luna, who was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for attempted abduction. The alleged victim was a minor, Juana Isidro y Rivera, aged 12. 2. Procedural History: The defendant, Juan Luna, was found guilty and condemned to one year, eight months, and twenty days of prision correccional, with accessories and costs. He appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the defendant's attorney presented a public instrument wherein Tomasa Rivera y Felipe, the mother and legal representative of the minor, granted an express pardon to Juan Luna on behalf of her daughter. 3. The Petition: The defendant's attorney moved for the declaration that the penal action was extinguished by the pardon and for the cancellation of the bail bond. The Solicitor-General opposed this, arguing that the pardon must be granted by the injured party herself, not her representative. The Supreme Court, referencing Article 448 of the Penal Code and Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence, held that while a parent or guardian may participate, the pardon must be granted by the injured party herself to extinguish the penal action. As the offended party, Juana Isidro, had not personally granted the pardon, the motion was overruled.
Issue(s)
Whether an express pardon granted unilaterally by the mother of a minor victim is sufficient to extinguish criminal liability for the crime of attempted abduction under Article 448 of the Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the motion to declare the penal action extinguished. The case was ordered to continue its prosecution in the second instance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the mother's pardon was legally insufficient. Under Article 448, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code, the express pardon must be granted by the injured party to be effective. The Court reasoned that while parents or guardians may initiate a prosecution when a victim is a minor or lacks capacity, the power to pardon is a distinct legal act that essentially and directly concerns the victim. In cases involving minors, the parent's role in a pardon is to 'complete the deficient personality' of the minor, meaning they must join the minor in the act rather than replace her. The Court emphasized that because the offense directly affects the injured party, she alone is entitled to authorize the extinction of the penal action. This principle is reinforced by the rule that marriage between the offender and the victim (an act involving the victim) creates a presumption of pardon, further proving the personal nature of the remission. Consequently, without the express participation or consent of the minor victim, Juana Isidro, the pardon executed by the mother could not produce the legal effect of blotting out the crime.
Main Doctrine
The pardon for the offense of attempted abduction must be granted by the injured party herself. In case the injured party is a minor, the parents or guardian must participate, but the pardon granted solely by them, in the name or on behalf of the minor, is insufficient to extinguish the penal action, as the injured party alone is entitled to remit the offense.