Title
Vera vs. People
Case
G.R. No. L-18184
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1963
Petitioners denied involvement in kidnapping and murder, sought amnesty under 1946 proclamation; Supreme Court ruled amnesty requires admission of guilt, remanded case for trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125646)

Key Dates

– February 13–14, 1945: Kidnapping and killing of Lt. Amadeo Lozanes
– January 12, 1956: Commission decision declining jurisdiction
– January 11, 1957: Commission denial of reconsideration
– July 27, 1959: Court of Appeals certification to the Supreme Court
– November 16, 1960: Court of Appeals decision affirming Commission
– January 31, 1963: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law (Under 1935 Constitution)

– Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (September 7, 1946)
– Revised Penal Code (crimes committed during Japanese occupation)
– Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 144, series of 1950

Factual Background

Petitioners were charged with the complex crime of kidnapping with murder of Lt. Amadeo Lozanes, a member of the Hunters ROTC Guerrilla organization. They sought relief under Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 by invoking the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission’s jurisdiction. During the proceedings before the Commission, petitioners uniformly denied committing the crime; only Gaudencio Vera testified, expressly repudiating any involvement.

Procedural History

  1. The Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission held on January 12, 1956, that it lacked jurisdiction because petitioners had not admitted the crime as required by the amnesty terms; it ordered the case remanded for ordinary trial.
  2. A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 11, 1957, with the Commission finding the killing arose from internecine guerrilla rivalry rather than resistance to the Japanese.
  3. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on July 27, 1959, certified the legal issue to the Supreme Court. After returning the record to the Court of Appeals, that tribunal on November 16, 1960, affirmed the Commission’s ruling that, under Administrative Order No. 144, the amnesty commission requires a verbal or written admission of the acts charged.
  4. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting the present petition for review.

Issue

Whether persons invoking the benefit of Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 must admit, either verbally or in writing, the commission of the crime with which they are charged.

Analysis of Admission Requirement

Supreme Court precedents (People vs. Llanita and People vs. Guillermo, 1950) establish that amnesty “presupposes the commission of a crime.” When an amnesty proclamation conditions relief on admission of the offense, the accused must enter a plea of confession and avoidance, admitting the allegations but seeking exemption under the proclamation’s terms. Denial of the act is inconsistent with an amnesty plea.

Application of Administrative Order No. 144

Administrative Order No. 144, series of 1950, amends prior DOJ directives to require that “the accused or respondent must allege or claim verbally or in writing that he committed the acts charged against him in furtherance of the resistance movement or against persons who acted in the war efforts of the enemy” before the Commission may take cognizance. Petitioners failed to satisfy this condition.

Sco

...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.