G.R. No.

L-1278            
January 21, 1949

LORETO BARRIOQUINTO and NORBERTO JIMENEZ - petitioners

vs.
ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO BELMONTE and FELICISIMO OCAMPO, as
Commissioners of the Fourteenth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission - respondents.

Roseller T. Lim for petitioners.

Antonio Belmonte for respondents.

Facts

1. Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto, both petitioners of said case, were
charged with the crim of murder.

2. Barrioquinto has not been arrested so the case proceeded against Jimenez who,
in fact, was sentence of life imprisonment by the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga.

3. Before perfecting an appeal expires, Jimenez became aware of the Proclamation

No. 8m, dated September 7, 1946, which grants amnesty in favor of all persons
who may be charged with an act penalized under the Revised Penal Code in
furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against persons aiding in the war
efforts of the enemy, and committed during the period from December 8, 1941 to
the date when particular area of the Philippines where the offense was actually
committed was liberated from enemy control and occupation

4. Jimenez submitted his case to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission as presided by

the respondents.

5. Loreto Barrioquinto, who was already apprehended, also submitted his case.

Issue

1. Whether or not respondents are entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty

Proclamation No. 8 of September 7, 1946

Held

As the theory of the respondents which is also supported by the dissenting opinion is
based on the wrong notion of the nature or character of an amnesty. Amnesty must be
distinguished from pardon.
Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive. It is a private act which must be pleaded and
proved by the person pardoned while amnesty is by Proclamation of the Chief Executive
with the agreement of Congress. It is a public act of which the courts take judicial notice
of.

Pardon is granted to a person after a conviction while amnesty is granted to classes of

persons or communities who were found guilty of political offenses before or after a
criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction.

Pardon looks forward and relieves an offender from the consequences of an offense of
which he has been convicted to. Pardon abolishes or forgives the punishment while
amnesty looks backward and puts an end of the offense itself.

In order for a person to be entitled of the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of

September 7, 1946, it is not necessary that he should admit having committed a
criminal act as he was charged and alleged the amnesty as a defense. It is sufficient
that the evidence of the complainant or the accuse shows that the offense committed
comes within the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation.

Since the Amnesty Proclamation is a public act, the courts and the Amnesty
Commissions should see to it that the terms of the said Proclamation and apply the
benefits granted therein to cases within the province or jurisdiction whether these are
pleaded or claimed by that person who was charged with the offense if the evidence
presented to such and shows that the accused is entitled of the said benefits.

It is not necessary for an accused to admit his responsibility on a criminal act before a
court of Amnesty Commission may investigate the matter and extend to him or not the
benefits of amnesty. The fact that he pleads not guilty on the act which he is charged,
does not prove that he is not guilty. But what should in such a case be determined is
whether or not the offense committed is of political character.

The plea of not having committed the act by the accused simply means that he cannot
be convicted of the offense charged because he is not guilty of it even if the evidence
says otherwise. He has indeed committed an act which is a resistance to the enemy or
against persons in the war efforts and not for purely political motives.

Ruling

Wherefore, the respondents are hereby ordered to immediately proceed to hear and
decide the application for amnesty of petitioners Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless
amnesty of petitioners Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless the courts have in the
meantime already decided, expressly and finally, the question whether or not they are
entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 of September 7, 1946. So
ordered.