GAUDENCIO VERA, RESTITUTO FIGUERAS, LORENZO

AMBAS, JUSTO FLORIDO, PAULINO BAYRAN AND JAYME

GARCIA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R L-18184, 31 January 1963, Barrera.

Principle in Sum

“Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an

accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any
use for amnesty. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain
conditions, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of
such conditions.”

FACTS:

1. Petitioners filed a motion invoking the benefits of Amnesty

Proclamation of the President which was referred to the 8 TH Guerrilla
Amnesty Division to try it.

2. No petitioner-defendant admitted the murder which was charged to

them specially Gaudencio Vera who was the only defendant who took the
witness stand, he instead categorically denied it.

3. 12 January 1956 - the commission refused to recognize the case, on the

ground that the benefits of amnesty could only be availed if there is an
admission of the crime, plead that the said commission was in pursuance
of the resistance movement and perpetrated against persons who aided the
enemy during the jap-occupation.

Court of Appeals

4. 16 Novemeber 1960 - CA ruled in their decision in affirming the

refusal of commission the that under Admin Order 144 of the DOJ:

“Where the offense charged against any person is not one against
chastity but is covered by the RPC, and the offense took place between
December 8 1941 and the date of liberation (Jap-occupation) of
province, city where the offense was committed, in order that the Amnesty
Commission nay take cognizance of the case. the accused or respondent
must allege or claim verbally/writing that he committed the acts
charged against him in furtherance of the resistance movement or
against persons who aided jap-efforts, for amnesty presuppose the
commission of a crime.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner can be availed of the amnesty without admitting
the crime being charged to them..

Petitioner’s Contention:
1. They contend that it is not necessary to admit the commission of the
crime charged, which was cited in cases of Barrioquinto, et al. vs
Fernandez and Viray vs Amnesty Commission, that in order to entitle a
person to the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation of September 7 1946, it
is not necessary that he should, as a sine qua non condition, admit the
crime charged; that is it is sufficient that the evidence shows that the
offense committed comes within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation

COURT’S RULING:
Petitioner-accused cannot not be availed of the amnesty, because
such invocation is in the nature of a plea of confession, which means
he acknowledges the charges made against him.

1. SC: the said cases which the petitioner invoked was already superseded
by the subsequent cases of People vs LLanita et. al and People vs
Guillermo, wherein this court held:
“It is rank inconsistency for appellant to justify an act, or seek
forgiveness for an act which, according to him, he has not committed.
Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused
maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for
amnesty. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as
in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of
such conditions. The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of
confession and avoidance, which means that the pleader admits the
allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of
intervening facts which, if proved, would bring
the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation.”

2. AO 144 of the DOJ which was the basis of the CA in its ruling was
actually in pursuant to LLanita and Guillermo cases, which was correctly
applied by the Appellate Court. Therefore the SC affirmed CA’s ruling.