G.R. No. L-2503. December 10, 1948.
CRESENCIO RUBEN TOLENTINO, petitioner-appellant, vs. CESARIO CATOY, Provincial Warden, Batangas, Batangas, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Cresencio Ruben Tolentino, a member of the Hukbalahap, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Batangas for illegal assembly in furtherance of Hukbalahap designs. While serving his sentence, President Elpidio Quirino issued Proclamation No. 76, granting amnesty to leaders and members of the Hukbalahap and PKM organizations under certain conditions, including surrender within a 20-day period. Tolentino, while imprisoned, petitioned the President for release under the amnesty but received no action. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The lower court, while finding him clearly covered by the amnesty, denied the writ, holding that he failed to follow the procedure in the Secretary of Justice’s implementing circulars, which vested release authority in a Committee on Implementation. The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the factual ground that Tolentino did not surrender any firearm.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 and should be released via a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release. The Court held:
1. Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 applies to all members of the Hukbalahap and PKM, including those already convicted and serving sentence at the time of its issuance. Its text makes no exception, and its spirit of generosity and practical objective of securing loyalty support an inclusive interpretation.
2. The implementing circulars of the Secretary of Justice, which created a committee to facilitate the amnesty, cannot restrict the grant or deny the courts their power to protect fundamental rights via habeas corpus when the executive fails to act.
3. On the factual issue of firearm surrender, a certificate from the Constabulary Commanding Officer indicated Tolentino surrendered a pistol and ammunition. The presumption of regularity attaches to this certificate, and the fiscal’s unsupported insinuation cannot overcome it. Moreover, the Court noted that physical surrender of a firearm might not be a strict necessity for a prisoner already in custody, as the requirement is a token of good faith, which can be shown by other means.
4. The rules of interpretation for pardon, which apply similarly to amnesty, require that general words be construed in their natural meaning and strictly against the state, absent a clear contrary intention.

AI Generated by Armztrong.