GR L 1278; (January, 1949) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with murder. Jimenez was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. Both petitioners, before the period for appeal expired, sought to avail of the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (dated September 7, 1946), which grants amnesty for acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code committed in furtherance of resistance to the enemy during the Japanese occupation. They submitted their cases to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission (respondents). The Commission, after a preliminary hearing, issued an order returning the cases to the trial court without deciding on the amnesty application, on the ground that neither petitioner admitted committing the offense (Barrioquinto alleged another person shot the victim). The Commission held that without such admission, petitioners could not invoke amnesty benefits.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners must admit committing the offense charged as a condition precedent to be entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus and directed the Commission to proceed with the hearing and decide whether petitioners are entitled to amnesty. The Court distinguished amnesty from pardon. Amnesty is a public act that abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself; it looks backward and treats the person as if no offense was committed. It does not require an admission of guilt as a condition. In contrast, pardon is a private act that forgives punishment after conviction and requires pleading and proof. The Court held that to entitle a person to amnesty benefits, it is sufficient that the evidence (from either the complainant or accused) shows the offense falls within the proclamation’s terms. The Commission must conduct a summary hearing to determine this, regardless of whether the accused confesses. The Commission’s duty is to examine the facts and decide; its refusal to do so based on lack of admission is a refusal to perform a ministerial duty, warranting mandamus.
AI Generated by Armztrong.