GR L 2278; (February, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2278; February 27, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO BONDOC (alias DICK TRACY), defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Ireneo Bondoc, along with about eleven others, conspired to kill Mayor Victor Tizon of Capas, Tarlac. On January 19, 1946, while Mayor Tizon and his police escort were walking to sitio Talimundoc to conduct a community assembly, they were ambushed. A volley of shots was fired from an area with thick cogon grass. In the ensuing exchange of fire, which lasted 10-15 minutes, policemen Ricardo Quizon and Candido Dayrit were killed. Mayor Tizon positively identified Bondoc among the ambushers, firing a carbine at them. Bondoc also gave a sworn statement (Exhibit A) admitting his participation in the ambush, stating he acted in compliance with an order from a Hukbalahap squadron director. The defense attempted to establish an alibi through two witnesses, but their testimonies were deemed unreliable and unconvincing by the trial court. Bondoc was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each, with the total not exceeding forty years. During the appeal, Bondoc moved for dismissal based on Presidential Proclamation No. 76 (an amnesty for Hukbalahap members), but the Solicitor General opposed, arguing Bondoc failed to comply with the proclamation’s requirements, particularly the surrender of firearms.
ISSUE
1. Whether the prosecution proved Bondoc’s guilt for the two murders beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether Bondoc is entitled to the benefits of Presidential Proclamation No. 76 (Amnesty Proclamation).
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Bondoc’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the positive identification of Mayor Tizon and policeman Lamberto Baun, who saw him actively participating in the ambush and firing at the mayor’s party. His extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A) further corroborated his participation. The defense of alibi, supported by weak and unreliable testimony, cannot prevail over positive identification.
2. No. Bondoc is not entitled to amnesty. Presidential Proclamation No. 76 required applicants to present themselves with all their firearms and ammunition to the duly constituted authorities within a specified period. The record failed to show that Bondoc complied with this fundamental requirement. Therefore, his motion for dismissal based on the amnesty proclamation was denied.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in toto.
AI Generated by Armztrong.