G.R. Nos. 148213-17 and 148243. March 13, 2009.
EDUARDO E. KAPUNAN, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FELICIANA OLALIA, PEROLINA ALAY-AY, and THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 71, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO CITY, Respondents. / OSCAR E. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FELICIANA C. OLALIA, PEROLINA ALAY-AY and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Eduardo E. Kapunan, Jr. and Oscar E. Legaspi face criminal charges for the 1986 kidnapping and murder of Rolando Olalia and Leonor Alay-ay. On January 12, 1998, private respondents filed a complaint before the Department of Justice (DOJ). A panel of investigators recommended the filing of two informations for murder against the petitioners and others. Petitioners moved to dismiss, claiming their criminal liability was extinguished by amnesty granted under Proclamation No. 347 by President Fidel V. Ramos. The DOJ Panel refused to consider the amnesty defense, finding that the killings were not committed in furtherance of a political belief as there was no rebellion against the government at the time of the murders, and that the documents did not show the Olalia-Alay-ay case was among the crimes applied for under the amnesty. The Secretary of Justice dismissed petitioners’ appeal, ruling the amnesty did not cover the killings as they constituted “extra-legal execution,” a serious human rights violation excluded from the amnesty, and were not politically motivated. The Court of Appeals dismissed their petitions for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary and holding that the applicability of amnesty involved factual questions not reviewable in such a petition.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are immune from prosecution for the Olalia-Alay-ay killings by virtue of the amnesty granted under Proclamation No. 347.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The amnesty under Proclamation No. 347 applies only to acts committed in pursuit of a political belief. The factual findings of the DOJ, which petitioners did not convincingly refute, established that the murders were not politically motivated. The rebellion by the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM) occurred long after the killings. Furthermore, Proclamation No. 348, which specifically covers AFP/PNP personnel, explicitly excludes from its grant serious human rights violations such as “extra-legal execution,” which the Olalia-Alay-ay murders constitute. The Court also noted that the amnesty application of petitioner Legaspi only mentioned “mutiny,” not the murder charges. Therefore, the amnesty grants do not extinguish petitioners’ criminal liability for the killings.