PEOPLE VS VERA Petitioners contend that it is not necessary for them

G.R. No. L-18184; January 31, 1963 to admit the commission of the crime, citing
Group 7 (Mahinay) Barrioquinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, et al, Provincial
Fiscal of Ilocos Norte v. De los Santos, et al. and Viray
v. Amnesty Commission, et al.
PETITIONERS: Gaudencio Vera, Restituto Figueras, Lorenzo o The cases have been superseded by People
Ambas, Justo Florido, Paulino Bayran, Jayme Garcia v. Llanita, et al. and People v. Guillermo
where the Court held that:
RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines, Court of Appeals
o Amnesty presupposes the commission of
TOPIC: Executive Clemency a crime, and when an accused maintains
that he has not committed a crime, he
FACTS: cannot have any use for amnesty The
invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a
The crime happened during the Japanese occupation
plea of confession and avoidance, which
Petitioners, members of the Guerrilla Party, were
means that the pleader admits the
charged with the complex crime of kidnapping with
allegations against him but disclaims
murder of Amadeo Lozanes, a lieutenant of a rival
liability therefor on account of intervening
guerrilla party: Hunter's ROTC Guerrilla
facts which, if proved, would bring the
Organizations
crime charged within the scope of the
Under the Amnesty Proclamation of the President,
amnesty proclamation.
the case was referred to the Eighth Guerrilla
Amnesty Proclamation extends its provisions to "all
Amnesty Commission for trial
persons who committed any act penalized under the
o Upon trial, no one admitted to committing
Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance
the crime
to the enemy or against persons aiding in the war
o The Commission held that it could not take
effort of the enemy."
cognizance of the case because the
o As found by the Commission, the killing of
benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation could
the deceased was not in furtherance of the
only be invoked if defendants (1) admit the
resistance movement, but was due to
commission of the crime, and (2) plead that
rivalry.
said commission was in pursuance of the
Petitioners cannot rely on Buyco v. People
resistance movement and perpetrated
o It only reiterates the ruling in the Llanita
against persons who aided the Japanese
and Guillermo cases, that amnesty cannot
o The Commission also ruled that the motive
be invoked, where the accused actually
behind the crime was the rivalry of the two
denies the commission of the offense
guerilla groups, not for the resistance
charged.
movement
CA did not err in applying DoJ Admin Order No. 144,
o MR filed, denied
series of 1950
Petitioners appealed to the CA
o The order was issued in pursuant to the
o CA certified the case to SC but SC remanded
Courts ruling in the Llanita and Guillermo
it back to CA because a question of fact was
cases
raised i.e. the death of Amado Lozanes did
CA did not err in declining to resolve the factual
not spring from personal motive or on
issues
account of rivalry between guerrilla units.
o The case proceeded from a body (the
o CA affirmed Commissions decision
Commission) that had no jurisdiction in the
Petitioners filed a petition for review to SC
first place
ISSUE/RULING/RATIO:
JUDGEMENT: CA affirmed
W/N persons invoking the benefit of amnesty should first
admit having committed the crime of which they were
accused YES