Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

BARRIOQUINTO V FERNANDEZ

Date: 1949
Facts:

Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with the
crime of murder. Barrioquinto was not arrested and only Jimenez was
sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before the period for appeal expired, Jimenez became aware of Proclamation
No. 8, dated Sept. 7, 1946, which grants amnesty in favor of persons charged
with an act penalized by the RPC in furtherance of the resistance to the
enemy or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy committed
from Dec. 8, 1941 to the date when the area where the crime was committed
was liberated.
Jimenez and Barrioquinto, who was already apprehended, decided to submit
their case to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission presided by herein
respondents.
However, Commissioner Fernandez of the 14th Amnesty Commission refused to
process the amnesty request of the two accused because the two refused to admit to
the crime as charged. Jimenez & Barrioquinto in fact said that a certain Tolentino was
the one who committed the crime being charged to them.

Issue: WON the amnesty under Proclamation No. 8 applies to petitioners


who pleaded not guilty?
Held: YES
Amnesty must be distinguished from pardon
AMNESTY
Public act which the court shall take
judicial notice
Granted to classes of
persons/communities who may be guilty
of political offenses, generally before or
after conviction
Looks backward and abolishes and puts
into oblivion the offense itself; it so
overlooks and obliterates the offense
with which the person is charged
The person released by an amnesty
stands before the law precisely as
though he had committed no
offense

PARDON
Granted by the Chief Executive and must
be pleaded and proved by the person
pardoned
Granted after conviction

Looks forward and relieved the offender


from the consequences of an offense of
which he has been convicted but does
not restore rights/relieve the culprit from
payment of the civil indemnity imposed
upon him by sentence

It is not mandatory for the person to admit the offense in order for him/her to
be entitled to the benefits of such amnesty. In order to entitle a person to the
benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation, it is not necessary that he should, as a
condition precedent or sine qua non, admit having committed the criminal act or
offense with which he is charged, and allege the amnesty as a defense;
It is sufficient that the evidence, either of the complainant or the accused, shows that
the offense committed comes within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation.
Hence, it is not correct to say that invocation of the benefits of amnesty is in the
nature of a plea of confession and avoidance. Although the accused does not
confess the imputation against him, he may be declared by the courts or the
Amnesty Commissions entitled to the benefits of the amnesty.
For, whether or not he admits or confesses having committed the offense with which
he is charged, the Commissions should, if necessary or requested by the interested
party, conduct summary hearing of the witnesses both for the complainants and the
accused, on whether he has committed the offense in furtherance of the resistance
to the enemy, or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy, and decide
whether he is entitled to the benefits of amnesty and to be regarded as a patriot or
hero who have rendered invaluable services to the nation, or not, in accordance with
the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation.
Since the Amnesty Proclamation is a public act, the courts as well as the Amnesty
Commissions created thereby should take notice of the terms of said Proclamation
and apply the benefits granted therein to cases coming within their province or
jurisdiction, whether pleaded or claimed by the person charged with such offenses or
not, if the evidence presented shows that the accused is entitled to said benefits

Even if the petitioners state that their motive for killing was to act against
enemies or the allies of the enemies, the Court cannot ascertain the
truthfulness of such statement, which would render it useless
If people are made to admit an offense before it is submitted to the
Amnesty Commission, only a few would be encouraged to avail of the
amnesty
Even if as Barrioquinto alleges that it was Agapito Hipolito who killed the
victim, they are still entitled to the benefits of amnesty because they were
members of the same group of guerrilleros who killed the victim in
furtherance of the resistance to the enemy/against persons aiding in the war
efforts of the enemy

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen