Vera vs. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime; an accused who denies having committed the offense charged cannot invoke the benefits of amnesty, and the invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance where the accused admits the allegations but disclaims liability on account of intervening facts which, if proved, would bring the crime within the scope of the amnesty proclamation.

Post-World War II amnesty proceedings under the President's Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (September 7, 1946), which granted amnesty to persons who committed penal offenses in furtherance of the resistance movement against Japanese forces or against persons aiding the enemy.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon (now RTC) — petitioners charged with kidnapping with murder of Amadeo Lozañes.
• Upon motion invoking Amnesty Proclamation No. 8, case referred to the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission.
• Amnesty Commission issued decision (January 12, 1956) and order (January 11, 1957) declining jurisdiction and remanding to CFI because petitioners denied committing the crime.
• Appealed to CA — CA initially certified appeal to SC (July 27, 1959); SC ordered return to CA for factual determination.
• CA rendered decision (November 16, 1960) affirming the Commission's order; motion for reconsideration denied.
• Petition for review filed with SC.

• Nature of Action: Criminal prosecution for complex crime of kidnapping with murder of Amadeo Lozañes, alias Azarcon, allegedly committed on February 13-14, 1945.
• Parties: Petitioners were members of the "Vera's Guerrilla Party"; victim was Lt. Amadeo Lozañes of the rival "Hunter's ROTC Guerrilla" organization.
• Amnesty Proceedings: Before the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, none of the petitioners admitted committing the crime; Gaudencio Vera, the only defendant who testified, categorically denied killing Lozañes.
• Commission's Findings:
  • The motive was inter-guerrilla rivalry, not furtherance of the resistance movement.
  • Lozañes was actually a lieutenant of the Hunter's ROTC engaged in resistance activities; his killing weakened rather than furthered the resistance.
  • Defendant Jaime Garcia showed no participation in the crime.
  • Remand: Commission ordered case returned to CFI for trial, holding it lacked jurisdiction because petitioners denied guilt.

• Admission of guilt is not a prerequisite to entitlement under Amnesty Proclamation No. 8; it is sufficient that the evidence shows the offense falls within the amnesty terms.
• Cited Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte v. De Los Santos, and Viray v. Amnesty Commission to support the claim that admission is unnecessary.
• The killing was not due to personal rivalry but because Lozañes aided the enemy as a member of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Constabulary and participated in massacres of civilians.
• The CA erred in applying DOJ Administrative Order No. 144, series of 1950, and in declining to resolve the factual issue regarding the victim's status as an enemy collaborator.

• Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime; it is rank inconsistency to seek forgiveness for an act one denies committing.
• People v. Llanita and People v. Guillermo correctly held that the accused must admit the crime to invoke amnesty, superseding the Barrioquinto line of cases.
• DOJ Administrative Order No. 144 explicitly requires the accused to allege or claim (verbally or in writing) that he committed the acts in furtherance of the resistance movement for the Commission to acquire jurisdiction.
• The CA properly declined to rule on factual issues because the case originated from a body (the Commission) that had no jurisdiction to entertain it, making any factual determination premature and useless.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Eighth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission properly declined jurisdiction over the case.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether an accused invoking amnesty benefits under Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 must admit having committed the crime charged.
  • Whether the killing of Lozañes fell within the coverage of Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (acts in furtherance of resistance or against enemy collaborators).

• Procedural: The Commission properly declined jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Since petitioners denied committing the crime, the Commission had no authority to take cognizance of the case under Administrative Order No. 144.
• Substantive:
  • Admission is required. An accused who denies the commission of the offense cannot invoke amnesty. The invocation constitutes a plea of confession and avoidance, which requires admitting the allegations but disclaims liability based on facts bringing the act within the amnesty terms.
  • The killing did not qualify for amnesty. As found by the Commission, the killing was motivated by rivalry between guerrilla units (Vera's vs. Hunter's) and actually weakened the resistance movement, rather than furthering it or targeting an enemy collaborator.

• Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime — Amnesty is a general pardon for political offenses. An accused who maintains he has not committed a crime "cannot have any use for amnesty." It is inconsistent to justify or seek forgiveness for an act one denies committing.
• Plea of confession and avoidance — The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of this plea. The accused admits the allegations against him but disclaims liability because intervening facts (if proved) would show the crime was committed (1) in furtherance of the resistance movement or (2) against persons aiding the enemy war effort.
• Requisites for Amnesty Commission jurisdiction (under Administrative Order No. 144):
  1. The offense charged is penalized under the Revised Penal Code (not against chastity).
  2. The offense took place between December 8, 1941 and the liberation of the province/city.
  3. The accused must allege or claim (verbally or in writing) that he committed the acts charged in furtherance of the resistance movement or against persons aiding the enemy war efforts.

• "It is rank inconsistency for appellant to justify an act, or seek forgiveness for an act which, according to him, he has not committed."
• "Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty."
• "The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance, which means that the pleader admits the allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which, if proved, would bring the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation."

• People v. Llanita (L-2082, April 26, 1950) and People v. Guillermo (L-2188, May 19, 1950) — Controlling precedent. Established that admission of guilt is required to invoke amnesty; superseded the contrary rulings in Barrioquinto, De Los Santos, and Viray.
• Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte v. De Los Santos, and Viray v. Amnesty Commission — Cited by petitioners but superseded/overruled by Llanita and Guillermo; previously held that evidence alone suffices without admission.
• Buyco v. People (L-6327, July 29, 1954) — Distinguished; reinforced the principle that denial of participation in the crime bars application of amnesty.

• Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (September 7, 1946) — Extended amnesty to persons who committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code "in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against persons aiding in the war effort of the enemy."
• Department of Justice Administrative Order No. 144 (October 11, 1950) — Amending Administrative Order No. 179; directed that for the Amnesty Commission to take cognizance, the accused must allege or claim verbally or in writing that he committed the acts charged in furtherance of the resistance movement or against persons aiding the enemy.