G.R. No. 101383 - Palma vs. Court of Appeals

The People of the Philippines, acting as plaintiff and appellee, charged Basilio Orobia, the defendant and appellant.
Orobia was accused by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur of illegally possessing a Garand rifle.

Sergeant Bias Valdez and Corporal Eugenio Dado of the Constabulary (Naga, Camarines Sur) acted on information that Orobia possessed a firearm.
Upon arrival at Orobia's residence in Bucao, barrio San Juan, Naga, Camarines Sur, the officers, assisted by the barrio lieutenant, found the accused in possession of the firearm.
Initially, Orobia denied having any firearm; but he later confessed and led the constabulary officers to a hole near his house where the firearm was hidden.

Orobia stated that the firearm was given to him by an American soldier in 1945.
The defendant did not testify at trial; his defense relied solely on documentary evidence.

Exhibit 1: "Statement of Basilio Orobia taken by Tech. Sgt. 6. P. Tacorda at HQ Cam. Sur Prov. PC Naga, Camarines Sur on 27 July 1947."

This statement was made five months after the firearm was taken from his possession.
It was sworn before the Justice of the Peace of Iriga on August 13, 1947.
Despite its submission, the exhibit was not duly identified in court.

Exhibit 2: A circular from the Constabulary addressed to the Provincial Commanders.
Exhibit 3: An affidavit of Celedonio Bon, sworn before the Justice of the Peace of Naga on December 6, 1947, stating that the appellant was a member of the dissident group of Abner.

This affidavit, like Exhibit 1, suffered from issues regarding proper identification and admissibility.

The appellant contended that he was entitled to the benefits of Proclamation No. 76, which granted amnesty to leaders and members of the Hukbalahap (Huk) and the PKM.
The Secretary of Justice had issued Circular No. 27, titled “Enforcement of Amnesty Proclamation No. 76,” establishing procedures for availing such benefits.
The controversy centered on whether Orobia complied with the requirements of the circular, notably the production of the necessary certificate under paragraph 2.

Whether the accused, Basilio Orobia, is entitled to the benefits of Proclamation No. 76 and the corresponding Secretary of Justice Circular No. 27.

Specifically, whether his failure to produce the required certificate under paragraph 2 of Circular No. 27 precludes him from claiming the amnesty.

The admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented in support of his membership in the Hukbalahap or any similar subversive organization.

Whether Exhibit 1, which was not duly identified and considered hearsay, should be accepted.
Whether Exhibit 3, also not properly identified and evidencing membership in a dissident group (not clearly part of Hukbalahap or the PKM), qualifies as proof of his claim.

Whether questions of law, as asserted by the appellant on appeal, were the proper basis for challenging the conviction, considering the evidentiary issues related to his amnesty claim.