Case Summary (G.R. No. 186400)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Commission decision: January 12, 1956 (found it could not take cognizance; remanded case).
- Commission order denying reconsideration: January 11, 1957.
- Court of Appeals certification to the Supreme Court: July 27, 1959; record docketed in the Supreme Court August 13, 1959 and later returned to the Court of Appeals.
- Court of Appeals decision affirming the Commission: November 16, 1960.
- Supreme Court judgment under review rendered January 31, 1963.
Note: as the decision predates 1990, the appropriate governing constitution at the time was the 1935 Constitution; the dispute, however, turns primarily on the scope of the Presidential amnesty proclamation, administrative rules, and controlling judicial precedents.
Applicable Law and Administrative Rule
Primary legal instrument invoked was Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (September 7, 1946), described as extending amnesty to persons who committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against persons aiding the enemy’s war effort. The Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 144 (1950), amending Administrative Order No. 179 (1949), was applied: it requires that, for an Amnesty Commission to take cognizance of a case, the accused must allege or claim, verbally or in writing, that he committed the acts charged in furtherance of the resistance movement or against persons aiding the enemy. Controlling judicial precedents include earlier cases that initially took a different view (e.g., Barrio-quinto, Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte, Viray), but later Supreme Court decisions (People v. Llanita; People v. Guillermo; People v. Buyco) established the rule that invocation of the amnesty presupposes an admission of commission of the crime and that implied admissions are insufficient.
Issue Presented
Whether persons invoking the benefit of Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 must first admit having committed the criminal acts charged against them in order for an Amnesty Commission to take cognizance and grant the benefits of the proclamation.
Findings and Reasoning of the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission
The Commission observed that none of the defendants admitted committing the charged crime; one petitioner who testified (Gaudencio Vera) expressly denied committing the killing. The Commission concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the amnesty claim because the proclamation’s benefits presuppose an admission that the act was committed in furtherance of the resistance or against persons who aided the enemy. On the merits, the Commission found the motive for the kidnapping and killing of Lt. Lozanes to be rivalry between guerrilla groups (the Vera’s Guerrilla Party and the Hunter’s ROTC Guerrilla organizations), rather than an act in furtherance of the resistance against the Japanese or directed against collaborators — a finding that tends to exclude the incident from the scope of the amnesty. The Commission further found that no evidence implicated Jaime Garcia in the crime.
Court of Appeals Holding and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission. It held that implied admissions are insufficient and relied on Administrative Order No. 144, which explicitly requires that the accused allege or claim orally or in writing that he committed the acts charged in furtherance of the resistance movement or against persons aiding the enemy. Because the appellants had denied the charges rather than alleging commission in the qualifying circumstances, the Court concluded the Commission could not take cognizance and the case should be tried by ordinary courts. The Court of Appeals refused to decide the contested factual question (whether Lozanes was an enemy collaborator and thus within the amnesty’s scope) as premature and useless given the Commission’s lack of jurisdiction; resolution of jurisdictional defects must precede factual adjudication by the Commission.
Supreme Court Analysis and Controlling Principle
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the settled principle from its post‑war jurisprudence that amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime and that invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance: the accused admits the acts alleged but seeks exemption from liability based on intervening facts (that the acts were committed in furtherance of the resistance or against enemy collaborators). Where an accused maintains he did not commit the crime, he cannot at the same time invoke amnesty. The Court treated the earlier cases that suggested proof alone might suffice as superseded by subsequent decisions (Llanita, Guillermo) and by Administrative Order No. 144 implementing that understanding. The Court also agreed that the record’s factual material as found by the Commission did not bring the killing within the terms of Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 because the killing appeared motivated by inter‑guerrilla rivalry and therefore would have weakened rather than furthered resistance activity.
Rationale on Evidentiary and Jurisdictional Matters
The Court emphasized procedural and substantive consequences of the denial of commission: Administrative Order No. 144 requires a verbal or written allegation that the accused committed the acts in qualifying circumstances before the Commission may assu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186400)
Case Citation and Panel
- 117 Phil. 170; G.R. No. L-18184; Decision dated January 31, 1963.
- Decision authored by Justice Barrera.
- Justices concurring: Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ.
Parties and Nature of the Proceeding
- Petitioners: Gaudencio Vera, Restituto Figueras, Lorenzo Ambas, Justo Florido, Paulino Bayran, Jaime Garcia, and 92 others designated as John Does.
- Respondents: People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals.
- Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission’s order remanding a criminal case to the Court of First Instance of Quezon and denying the applicability of amnesty.
Criminal Charge and Origin of Case
- Petitioners were charged in the Court of First Instance of Quezon with the complex crime of kidnapping with murder of Amadeo Lozanes, alias Azarcon.
- Petitioners sought to invoke the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of the President, series of 1946.
Referral to Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission and Hearing
- On petitioners’ motion invoking amnesty, the case was referred to and actually tried by the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission.
- During the Commission hearing, none of the petitioners admitted committing the crime charged.
- Gaudencio Vera was the only petitioner to take the witness stand and he categorically denied killing Lozanes.
Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission Decision (January 12, 1956)
- The Commission held it could not take cognizance of the case.
- Reason: The benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation could be invoked only by defendants in a criminal case who, admitting the commission of the crime, plead that such commission was in pursuance of the resistance movement and perpetrated against persons who aided the enemy during the Japanese occupation.
- Consequence: The Commission ordered that the case be remanded to the Court of First Instance of Quezon for trial.
Motion for Reconsideration Before the Commission and Order Denying It (January 11, 1957)
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the Commission denied in an order dated January 11, 1957.
- The Commission’s order contained findings and reasoning including:
- The motive for the kidnapping and killing of Lt. Amadeo Lozanes was the keen rivalry between the Vera’s Guerrilla Party and the Hunter’s ROTC Guerrilla organizations.
- It was noteworthy that the Hunters were driven away by General Vera from Pitogo in December 1944.
- After the killing on February 13 and 14, 1945, Mayor Ramon Isaac of Unisan was kidnapped by the Hunters in turn.
- Testimony of Leopoldo Miciano, secretary of Col. de Luna of the Vera’s Guerrilla Party, that General Vera told him of his suspicion that Mayor Isaac “was kidnapped by way of reprisal as lie, Vera, had ordered the liquidation of Lt. Losanes (dinispatcha).”
- It was an established fact that Lozanes, when kidnapped, tortured, and killed, was a lieutenant of the Hunter’s ROTC Guerrilla organization then engaged in the resistance movement.
- The Commission concluded that the killing of Lt. Lozanes was not in furtherance of the resistance movement and would rather have tended to weaken the resistance movement against the Japanese invaders.
- The Commission noted that nowhere in the record was it shown that defendant Jaime Garcia participated in the crime or that he admitted or disclaimed any role; thus there would be no basis either for his conviction or for application of amnesty provisions to him.
- Final disposition by the Commission: It denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and maintained its order to return the case to the Court of First Instance of Quezon, citing lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, that the defendants were not entitled to amnesty.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Certification to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners appealed the Commission’s order to the Court of Appeals.
- On July 27, 1959, the Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court in view of the legal issue involved: whether persons invoking the benefit of amnesty should first admit having committed the crime of which they were accused.
- On August 13, 1959, the Supreme Court ordered docketing of the appeal (C.R. No. L-15808).
- Petitioners moved to return the record to the Court of Appeals on the ground that appeal was originally coursed there due to factual issues asserting Lozanes had sided with the enemy — specifically, that he had been a member of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Constabulary and one of those who arrested and massacred civilians and guerrillas in Catanauan, Quezon.
- The Supreme Court ordered the return of the record to the Court of Appeals for further action on those factual assertions.
Court of Appeals Decision (November 16, 1960)
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission’s order.
- Key points in the Court of Appeals’ ruling:
- Appellants’ claim of implied admission was insufficient.
- Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 144 (series of 1950), amending Administrative Order No. 179 (issued November 17, 1949), explicitly directs that where the offense charged is covered by the Revised Penal Code and occurred between December 8, 1941 and the date of liberation of the province or city where offense occurred, the accused must allege or claim verbally or in writing that he committed the acts in furtherance of the resi