Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Patriarca, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 135457
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2000
Jose Patriarca, convicted of murder, was acquitted after amnesty under Proclamation No. 724 extinguished his criminal liability for politically motivated crimes.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135457)

Charges and Trial Proceedings

The prosecution charged Jose Patriarca, Jr. with murder, specifically for the killing of Alfredo Arevalo. He was also charged with murder in connection with two other individuals, Rudy de Borja and Elmer Cadag, leading to his arraignment on November 25, 1993. During the trial, evidence centered around the testimony of Nonito Malto, who recounted the events leading up to the shooting, and Elisa Arevalo, who provided details of her son’s abduction and subsequent death. The Regional Trial Court in Sorsogon found Patriarca guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua on January 20, 1998, while acquitting him of charges related to de Borja and Cadag due to lack of evidence.

Defense Argument

Patriarca’s defense acknowledged his membership in the New People’s Army (NPA) but denied involvement in the crimes charged. He argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder of Alfredo Arevalo, framing his actions as being in line with political activities linked to rebellion. This appeal primarily focused on the assertion that the offenses were committed in furtherance of rebellion.

Grant of Amnesty

In light of his claims of political motivation behind his actions, Jose Patriarca, Jr. applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 724, which was granted by the National Amnesty Board on October 22, 1999. This grant recognized that his actions were pursued in furtherance of his political beliefs and effectively removed the legal consequences of the crimes he had been accused of.

Legal Implications of Amnesty

The legal framework for amnesty indicates that it absolves individuals from the penalties associated with their offenses, as defined under the Revised Penal Code. Specifically, it extinguishes criminal liability and the burden of consequences arising from the criminal acts, aligning the individual as though no crime had been committed. This contrasts with pardon, which is a private act restoring rights but does not negate the offense itself.

Court Decision

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, upon reviewing the case, emphasized t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.