GR L 2649; (April, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2649; April 26, 1950
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGUNDO PINEDA, ET AL., defendants. FRANCISCO PINEDA and JESUS CATACUTAN, appellants.
FACTS
On February 4, 1946, the accused, including appellants Francisco Pineda and Jesus Catacutan, together with others, abducted Olegario Suarez, a municipal policeman from Bacolor, Pampanga, from his father-in-law’s house in Sta. Rita. The abduction was motivated by their belief that Suarez had reported them to the military police. They tied his hands and marched him to Barrio Sta. Barbara. There, they forced a witness, Serafin Ocampo, to dig a grave. Suarez attempted to escape but was caught, shot by Mamerto Cortes and Pedro Sicat, and buried. An information for murder was filed against several accused. The case against Serafin Ocampo was dismissed so he could testify for the prosecution. After trial, Francisco Pineda and Jesus Catacutan were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They appealed, raising defenses of alibi and claiming entitlement to amnesty under Proclamation No. 76.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the evidence.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of June 21, 1948.
RULING
1. The conviction is upheld. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings on credibility. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Serafin Ocampo and Nicolas Ticsay were credible and consistent, while the appellants’ defenses of alibi were weak, self-serving, and fabricated with ease. The court noted the appellants’ own admissions corroborated parts of the prosecution’s narrative.
2. The appellants are not entitled to amnesty. The amnesty under Proclamation No. 76 was conditional, applying only to members of the Hukbalahap or PKM who voluntarily surrendered with their arms within a specified period. First, the appellants’ sworn statements in court that they were not members of these organizations prevailed over their later unsworn certifications to the contrary. Second, they did not voluntarily surrender; they were already under detention when they claimed amnesty. Third, the crime was not politically motivated. The killing was personal, done because they suspected Suarez of reporting them to the authorities, not because he was a policeman acting in the performance of his duties at the time.
The appealed judgment was affirmed in toto.
AI Generated by Armztrong.