Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. (Sec. 19, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) |
|---|
Vera and 96 others were charged with the complex crime of kidnapping with murder before CFI of Quezon. They invoked the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 of the President; thus, the case was referred to the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission which tried the case. During the hearing, none of the petitioners admitted having committed the crime. Vera was the only one who took the witness stand and denied having killed Lozanes. The Commission said it could not take cognizance of the case because the benefits of amnesty could only be invoked by defendants in a criminal case who, admitting commission of the crime, plead that the said crime was committed in pursuance of the resistance movement and perpetrated against persons who aided the enemy during the Japanese occupation. The Commission ordered that the case be remanded to the court of origin for trial.
The CA affirmed the decision of the Commission. Vera appealed to the SC, contending that to be entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation it is not necessary for them to admit the commission of the crime charged, citing the case of Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez, etc.
The CA affirmed the decision of the Commission. Vera appealed to the SC, contending that to be entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation it is not necessary for them to admit the commission of the crime charged, citing the case of Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez, etc.
Issue:
Should persons invoking the benefit of amnesty first admit having committed the crime of which they were accused?
Held:
Yes. 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. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions. 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 being the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation.
Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez and the other cases cited by petitioner were superseded and deemed overruled by the subsequent cases of People v. Llanita, et al. (L-2082, April 26, 1950, 86 Phil. 219) and People v. Guillermo, et al. (L-2188, May 18, 1950, 86 Phil. 395). (Gaudencio Vera vs. People, G.R. No. L-18184, January 31, 1963)
Yes. 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. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions. 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 being the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation.
Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez and the other cases cited by petitioner were superseded and deemed overruled by the subsequent cases of People v. Llanita, et al. (L-2082, April 26, 1950, 86 Phil. 219) and People v. Guillermo, et al. (L-2188, May 18, 1950, 86 Phil. 395). (Gaudencio Vera vs. People, G.R. No. L-18184, January 31, 1963)
0 Comments
Post a Comment