G.R. No.

L-1278 January 21, 1949

LORETO BARRIOQUINTO and NORBERTO JIMENEZ, petitioners,

vs.
ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO BELMONTE and FELICISIMO OCAMPO, as
Commissioners of the Fourteenth Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, respondents.

Roseller T. Lim for petitioners.

Antonio Belmonte for respondents.

FERIA, J.:

This is a special action of mandamus instituted by the petitioners against the respondents who
composed the 14th Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, to compel the latter to act and decide whether or
not the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of amnesty.

Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with the crime of murder. As the
latter had not yet been arrested the case proceeded against the former, and after trial Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga sentenced Jimenez to life imprisonment. Before the period for perfecting an
appeal had expired, the defendant Jimenez became aware of the Proclamation No. 8, dated
September 7, 1946, which grants amnesty in favor of all persons who may be charged with an act
penalized under the Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against
persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy, and committed during the period from December 8,
1941, to the date when particular area of the Philippines where the offense was actually committed
was liberated from enemy control and occupation, and said Jimenez decided to submit his case to
the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission presided by the respondents herein, and the other petitioner
Loreto Barrioquinto, who had then been already apprehended, did the same.

After a preliminary hearing had started, the Amnesty Commission, prescribed by the respondents,
issued on January 9, 1947, an order returning the cases of the petitioners to the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga, without deciding whether or not they are entitled to the benefits of the said
Amnesty Proclamation, on the ground that inasmuch as neither Barrioquinto nor Jimenez have
admitted having committed the offense, because Barrioquinto alleged that it was Hipolito Tolentino
who shot and killed the victim, they cannot invoke the benefits of amnesty.

The Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946, issued by the President with the concurrence of
Congress of the Philippines, reads in part as follows:

WHEREAS, since the inception of the war until the liberation of the different areas
comprising the territory of the Philippines, volunteer armed forces of Filipinos and for of other
nationalities operated as guerrillas and other patriotic individuals and groups pursued
activities in opposition to the forces and agents of the Japanese Empire in the invasion and
occupation of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, members of such forces, in their determined efforts to resist the enemy, and to
bring about his ultimate defeat, committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code;

WHEREAS, charges have been presented in the courts against many members of these
resistance forces, for such acts;
 WHEREAS, the fact that such acts were committed in furtherance of the resistance to the
enemy is not a valid defense under the laws of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, the persons so accused should not be regarded as criminals but rather as
patriots and heroes who have rendered invaluable service to the nation; and

WHEREAS, it is desirable that without the least possible delay, these persons be freed form
the indignity and the jeopardy to which they are now being subjected;

NOW, THEREFORE, I Manuel Roxas, President of the Philippines in accordance with the
provisions of Article VII, section 10, paragraph 6 of the Constitution, do hereby declare and
proclaim an amnesty inn favor of al persons who committed any act 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, and committed during the period from December 8, 1941 to
the date when each particular area of the Philippines was actually liberated from the enemy
control and occupation. This amnesty shall not apply to crimes against chastity or to acts
committed from purely personal motives.

It is further proclaimed and declared that in order to determine who among those against
whom charges have been filed before the courts of the Philippines or against whom charges
may be filed in the future, come within the terms of this amnesty, Guerrilla Amnesty
Commissions, simultaneously to be established , shall examine the facts and circumstance
surrounding each case and, if necessary, conduct summary hearings of witnesses both for
the complainant and the accused. These Commissions shall decided each case and, upon
finding that it falls within the terms of this proclamation, the Commissions shall so declare
and this amnesty shall immediately be effective as to the accused, who shall forthwith be
released or discharged.

The theory of the respondents, supported by the dissenting opinion, is predicated on a wrong
conception of the nature or character of an amnesty. Amnesty must be distinguished from pardon.

Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and
proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by
Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of which
the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is
granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally
before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon
looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been
convicted, that is, it abolished or forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does ""not work the
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
restored by the terms of the pardon," and it "in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the
civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence" article 36, Revised Penal Code) while amnesty
looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates
the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law
precisely as though he had committed no offense.

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so hold that, in order to entitle a person to the
benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946, 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. 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 show that the accused is entitled to said benefits.

The right to the benefits of amnesty, once established by the evidence presented either by the
complainant or prosecution, or by the defense, can not be waived, because it is of public interest that
a person who is regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation which has the force of a law, not only as
innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never committed any punishable offense
because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or hero, can not be punishment as a criminal. Just as the
courts of justice can not convict a person who, according to the evidence, has committed an act not
punishable by law, although he confesses being guilty thereof, so also and a fortiori they can not
convict a person considered by law not a criminal, but as a patriot and hero, for having rendered
invaluable services to the nation inn committing such an act.

While it is true that the evidence must show that the offense charged was against chastity and was
committed in furtherance of the resistance against the enemy, for otherwise, it is to be naturally
presumed that is has been committed for purely personal motive, it is nonetheless true that though
the motive as a mental impulse is state of mind or subjective, it need not be testified to be the
defendant himself at his arraignment or hearing of the case. Generally the motive for the commission
of an offense is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused
before or immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds or words hat may express it or
from which his motive or reason for committing it may be inferred. The statement of testimony of a
defendant at the time of arraignment or the hearing of the case about said motive, can not generally
be considered and relied on, specially if there is evidence to the contrary, as the true expression of
the reason o motive he had at the time of committing the offense. Because such statements or
testimony may be an afterthought or colored by the interest he may have to suit his defense or the
purpose for which he intends to achieve with such declaration. Hence it does not stand to reason
and logic to say, as the dissenting opinion avers, that unless the defendant admits at the
investigation or hearing having committed the offense with which he is charged, and states that he
did it in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy, and not for purely personal motive, it is
impossible for the court of Commission to verify the motive for the commission of the offense,
because only the accused could explain of the offense, because only the accused could explain his
belief and intention or the motive of committing the offense.

There is no necessity for an accused to admit his responsibility for the commission of a criminal act
before a court of Amnesty Commission may investigate and extend or not to him the benefits of
amnesty. The fact that he pleads not guilty or that he has not committed the act with which he is
charged, does not necessarily prove that he is not guilty thereof. Notwithstanding his denial, the
evidence for the prosecution or complainant may show the contrary, as it is generally the case in
criminal proceedings, and what should in such a case be determined is whether or not the offense
committed is of political character. The plea of not having committed the offense made by an
accused simply means that he can not be convicted of the offense charged because he is not guilty
thereof, and, even if the evidence would show that he is, because he has committed it in furtherance
of the resistance to the enemy or against persons a ding in the war efforts of the enemy, and not for
purely political motives.

According to Administrative Order No. 11 of October 2, 1946, creating the Amnesty Commissions,
issued by the President of the Philippines, cases pending in the Courts of First Instance of the
province in which the accused claims the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation, and cases already
decided by said courts but not yet elevated on appeal to the appellate courts, shall be passed upon
and decided by the respective Amnesty Commission, and cases pending appeal shall be passed
upon by the Seventh Amnesty Commission. Under the theory of the respondents and the writer oft
he dissenting opinion, the Commissions should refuse to comply with the directive of said
Administrative Order, because is almost all cases pending in the Court of First Instance, and all
those pending appeal form the sentence of said courts, the defendants must not have pleaded guilty
or admitted having committed the offense charged for otherwise, they would not or could not have
appealed from the judgment of the Courts of First Instance. To hold that a Amnesty Commission
should not proceed to the investigation and act and decide whether the offense with which an
accused was charged comes within the Amnesty Proclamation if he does not admit or confess
having committed it would be to defeat the purpose for which the Amnesty Proclamation was issued
and the Amnesty Commission were established. If the courts have to proceed to the trail or hearing
of a case and decide whether the offense committed by the defendant comes within the terms of the
Amnesty Proclamation although the defendant has plead not guilty, there is no reason why the
Amnesty Commissions can not do so. Where a defendant to admit or confess having committed the
offense or being responsible therefor before he can invoke the benefit of amnesty, as there is no law
which makes such admission or confession not admissible as evidence against him in the courts of
justices in case the Amnesty Commission finds that the offense does not come within the terms of
the Amnesty Proclamation, nobody or few would take the risk of submitting their case to said
Commission.

Besides, in the present case, the allegation of Loreto Barrioquinto that the offended party or victim
was shot and killed by Agapito Hipolito , does not necessarily bar the respondents from finding, after
the summary hearing of the witnesses for the complaints and the accused, directed in the said
Amnesty Proclamation and Administrative Order No. 11, that the petitioners are responsible for the
killing of the victim, either as principals by cooperation, inducement or conspiration, or as
accessories before as well as after the fact, but that they are 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 or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.

Wherefore, the respondents are hereby ordered to immediately proceed to hear and decide the
application for amnesty of petitioners Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless amnesty of petitioners
Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless the courts have in the meantime already decided, expressly and
finally, the question whether or not they are entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation No.
8 of September 7, 1946. So ordered.

Moran, C. J., Paras, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., concurring:

An information for the crime of murder was filed against petitioners with the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga. Because Barrioquinto was then at large, the information was dismissed and a separate
criminal case was instituted against him. Jimenez was tried with other accused and sentenced to life
imprisonment. Within the time for appeal, Jimenez became aware of Proclamation No. 8, date
September 7, 1946, granting amnesty to all persons who have committed offenses in furtherance of
the resistance against the Japanese, and decided to submit his case to the 14th Guerrilla Amnesty
Commission. Barrioquinto, having been apprehended, did the same.

After the preliminary hearing had started, the Commission issued on January 9, 1947, an order for
the return of the cases of petitioners to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, without deciding
whether or not they are entitled to amnesty, because Barrioquinto sated in his testimony that it was
Hipolito Tolentino who fired at and killed the offended party. The Commission issued the order upon
the thesis that, for any person to invoke the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation, it is required that
he should first admit having committed the offensive act for which he is prosecuted.

The next of the Amnesty Proclamation fails to support the thesis. To entitle a person to have his
case heard and decided by a Guerrilla Amnesty Commission only the following elements are
essential: First, that he is charged or may be charged with ab offense penalized under the Revised
Penal Code, except those against chastity or for purely personal motives; second, that he committed
the offense in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy; and third, that it was committed during the
period from December 8, 1941, to the date when the area where the offense was committed was
actually liberated from enemy control and occupation.

If these three elements are present in a case brought before a Guerrillas Amnesty Commission, the
latter cannot refuse to hear and decide it under the proclamation. There is nothing in the
proclamation to even hint that the applicant for amnesty must first admit having executed the acts
constituting the offense with which he is charged or be charged.

Upon the facts in this case, petitioners are entitled to have their applications for amnesty heard and
decided by respondent 14th Guerrilla Amnesty Commission.

With the revocation of its order of January 9, 1947, respondent 14th Guerrilla Amnesty Commission
is ordered to immediately proceed to hear and decide the applications for amnesty of petitioners
Barrioquinto and Jimenez.

TUASON, J., dissenting:

I am unable to agree with the decision of the Court and shall briefly state my reasons.

The decision proceeds on the assumption that the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission refused to hear
and decide the application for amnesty of the present petitioners. I think this is a mistake. There are
examinations of records, hearing and decisions.

The pleadings and annexes show that hearing was held on the 9th of January, 19947 in which the
two petitioners and their counsel were present, and one of them, Barrioquinto, testified and that it
was after that hearing, on the same date, that the Commission denied their petition in a written order
and directed the clerk to return the "expedientes" to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga for its
final action.
It is apparent from this order that the Commission acted in the manner contemplated by
Proclamation No. 8 of the President. The return of the papers to the court merely follow the
procedure provided in the proclamation, which stipulates "that any case now pending on which may
be filed in the future a Guerrilla Amnesty Commission decides as not within the terms of the amnesty
shall proceed in accordance with the usual legal procedure in the courts without regard to this
proclamation."

The proclamation does not prescribe any specific mode of hearing. That the Commission shall
examine the facts and circumstance surrounding each case is all that is provided for. In its
discretion, the Commission may, if it deems necessary, hear the witnesses both for the complainant
and the accused. The hearing does not have to be formal; it may be summary, according tot he
proclamation. This privilege, discretionary with the Commission, was afforded the accused as far as
the nature of their defense permitted.

I get the inference from an examination of the orders of the Commission that the latter went over the
record of each defendant's criminal case. These records are, without doubt, the "expedientes" which
the Commission, ordered sent back to the court. The Commission, we are to presume, read the
exhaustive and well-reasoned decision of the court against Jimenez and the evidence for and
against him on which that decision is based. The fact that Jimenez and his witness had already
given his evidence at length, may well account for the failure or refusal of the Commission to hear
him and his witnesses further. Only Barrioquinto, whose case had not yet been tried in the Court of
First Instance because he had escaped, was heard by the Commission. The record of heat hearing
consists of 33 written pages.

As to the determination of the pretended right of the defendants to the benefits of amnesty, the two
orders of the Commission are decisions on the merits, definite and final as far as the Commission is
concerned. The fact that the defendants denied having committed the crime imputed to them was
cited by the Commission as ground for its decision to turn down their application. That circumstance
was not given as ground for refusal to act. Moreover, in the second order, a lengthy order dictated
on the motion for reconsideration by Jimenez, additional reasons are stated.

The Commission has thus amply performed the duties required of it by the Amnesty Proclamation in
both the matters of investigating and deciding. The commission heard one accused and examined
the evidence introduced and the decision rendered against the other. With the reasoning by which
the Commission reached its decision, or with the result of its decision, it is not within the province of
the court to concern itself.

The Amnesty Commissions are executive instrumentalities acting for and in behalf of the President.
They are not courts; they are not performing judicial function, and this Court has no appellate
jurisdiction over their actuations, orders or decisions.

Mandamus is ordinarily a remedy for official inaction. (Guanio vs. Fernandez, 55 Phil., 814.) The
Court can order the Commission to act but it can not tell the Commission how to act. How or for
whom a case should be decided is a matter of judgment which courts have no jurisdiction to control
or review. And so ifs the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence. The write of mandamus will not
issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon a
public officer the right and the duty to exercise judgment. In reference to any matter in which he is
required to act, it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. (Blanco vs. Board
of Medical Examiners, 46 Phil., 190.)

In the view I take of the case, it is unnecessary to discuss the court's premise that "there is nothing in
the proclamation to even hint that the applicant for amnesty must first admit having executed the ac t
s constituting the offense with which he is charged or may be charged." Nevertheless, I don't think
the Commission was wrong in its theory.

Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime. When an accused says that he has not committed
a crime he cannot have any use for amnesty. It is also self-evening that where the Amnesty
Proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove
the existence of those conditions. A petition for amnesty is inn the nature of plea of confession and
avoidance. The pleader has to confess the allegations against him before he is allowed to set out
such facts as, if true, would defeat the action. It is a rank inconsistency for one to justify an act, seek
forgiveness for an act of which, according to him, he is not responsible. It is impossible for a court or
commission to verify the presence of the essential conditions which should entitle the applicants to
exemption from punishment, when the accused and his witnesses say that he did not commit a
crime. In the nature of things, only the accused and his witnesses could prove that the victim
collaborated with the enemy; that the killing was perpetrated in furtherance of the resistance
movements; that no personal motive intervened in the commission of the murder, etc., etc. These, or
some of these, are matters of belief and intention which only the accused and his witnesses could
explain.

As a matter of procedure, certiorari or mandamus, whatever the present proceeding may be, does
not lie because there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. The decision of the
Commission has not closed the avenue for the petitioners to invoke the provisions of the Amnesty
Proclamation before the courts. I invite attention to the provision of the proclamation which I have
quoted. In the case of Jimenez, he could ask for a new trial, as he in effect would have the
Commission grant him; and in the case of Barrioquinto he could set up the proclamation in his plea
when his trial comes up.

PABLO, M., concurring:

Concurro con esta disidencia.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2082 April 26, 1950

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NEMESIO LLANETA and PEDRO MAGDUGO, defendants-appellants.

Mariano A. Carbonell for appellant Llaneta.

Tañada, Pelaez and Teehankee and Ezequiel Zaballero, Jr. for appellant Magdugo.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Jose G. Bautista for appellee.

TUASON, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction finding Nemesio Llaneta and Pedro Magdugo,
appellants herein, guilty of murder. Pedro Tagam was arrested by order of Pedro Magdugo, leader
of an irregular force, and, the prosecution charges, was killed by Llaneta by order of, and in
company with, his fellow-accused. The appellants contend that Tagam was slain not them or either
of them, but by Pedro Balacuit.

The issue hinges on the relative credibility of the witnesses. As a considerable part of the evidence
for either party, as taken down in the record, is self-contradictory and confused, it will be easier to
set it out in detail than to digest or summarize it. Besides, the former method, it is believed, will be
more conducive to a clearer understanding of the discussion and opinion that will follow.

Following are the names of the witnesses and detailed extracts from their respective testimony.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Pedro Sabay, 40 years old. He has known Nemesio Llaneta for a long time, but Pedro Magdugo only
since the guerrilla days. On November 5, 1942, in the municipality of Alubijid, Province of Misamis
Oriental, Llaneta shot Pedro Tagam because Magdugo ordered him to do so. He was quite far,
about 15 brazas away, from Llaneta and Tagam, while the distance between the two accused was
less than two meters. Llaneta shot Tagam with a rifle. He thinks that Pedro Tagam was hit. He says
he thinks because he was quite far. After the second shot, he saw Pedro Tagam "roll down."
Immediately thereafter "I went home to the place where I boarded." Asked where he was boarding, if
he was not a prisoner or detained, he answered, "I was imprisoned after Tagam was killed by them."
Before killing Tagam, they took him from the house where he (witness) was imprisoned. He did not
know the person who got Tagam from the house where he (witness) was imprisoned because as
soon as that soldier arrived, he shouted, "Let the prisoners come down." Upon this order "we went
down." When he was still upstairs, Lofredo Galarrita whispered to him that "they were going to shoot
Tagam." After that he "went downstairs and followed them." When he arrived at the plaza, he
stopped under Felix Roxas' house from which he saw Magdugo and Llaneta, the latter carrying a
rifle. Then he heard a shot and Tagam exclaimed. "What are you going to do with me? Why are you
going to shoot me?" One more shot was fired and he saw Tagam reel. Thereafter he went back to
the house where he was staying. He did not know where Tagam was buried. He learned only
afterwards that Tagam was buried "at the curb along provincial road in the poblacion of Alubijid."

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY BORJA

Asked how it was that he saw Magdugo signal to Llaneta to shoot Tagam when, as he said, it was
already 6:30 o'clock in the evening, Sabay replied that he saw Magdugo moving his left hand,
pointing at somebody, as if telling Llaneta to shoot. Told to demonstrate how Magdugo signaled to
his co-accused, he "swung his left hand forward and downward several times." He said that he
testified at the preliminary investigation but did not state that Magdugo ordered Llaneta to shoot
Tagam because he was not asked about it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. C. VAMENTA

The witness said that he was arrested with Tagam on November 5, 1942. Tagam was shot after 6
o'clock in the evening. He and Tagam were arrested at the same time and both of them were taken
to the house where they were investigated and after that Tagam was taken away and shot. Asked
what he meant by saying that he and Tagam were arrested which Tagam was killed, he said, "When
they arrived in that house (guardhouse), we were made to sit down on the chair and Magdugo
investigated Tagam." Magdugo, he said, asked Tagam if he still had some "pistons" and Tagam said
he had none. Magdugo asked Tagam if he was a soldier (USAFFE) and Tagam said yes. Then
Magdugo asked Tagam why he did not report for duty if he was a soldier and Tagam answered that
he was going to do so in Imbatug, Bukidnon, because his wife's parents lived there. Tagam further
said that if he should report for duty in Alubijid, he would be far from his wife and nobody could
inform her of his whereabouts. He was present when Tagam was investigated. The time of the
investigation, he thinks, was a little half past 6 o'clock in the evening. Tagam's investigation by
Magdugo did not last long. When Tagam was killed, he (witness) was already under arrest. Asked
how it happened that he was in the plaza when, according to him, he was in the plaza when,
according to him, he had been ordered to go back to the guardhouse, being a prisoner, he replied
that when he went back to the house where he was staying, he met Lofredo Galarrita who whispered
to him "that they were going to kill Tagam." So, afraid, he went down and "saw them" going towards
the plaza, and upon reaching the house of Felix Roxas, he stopped and saw Llaneta, Magdugo and
Tagam. When asked if he meant to say that when he was lodged in the guardhouse as a prisoner he
was deprived of liberty to go out, he said no, because he "was not yet imprisoned." In the house
where he and Tagam were lodge there were soldiers guarding the prisoners, one of whom Lofredo
Galarrita. He was surprised when he was arrested because he did not know what he was arrested
for. Afterward he came to know the reason; it was "because they have already killed Tagam and
because we were together." When asked if he was not arrested for being a spy and not because he
had been with Tagam, he said, "At first, on November 5, 1942, Ireneo Sabellita went to Tubahon,
together with Leon Roslim. Ireneo Sabellita went up the house of Ramon Pangca while Leon Roslim
proceeded to the beach where Tagam was at that time. As soon as Leon Roslim arrived at the
beach, he told Tagam, 'What about the piston which I spoke to you about?' and Tagam said, 'I have
no more, because I have already sold them all.' Consequently, Leon got angry and said, 'You do not
know that is not I who needs the piston, it is the order of Sergeant Magdugo and Loloy Roxas, to get
the piston from you?' "

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY FISCAL COLOSO

Magdugo was the killing (hari) in Alubijid and Llaneta was the executor (verdugo).

Rodolfo Carretas, 24 years old. He knew the two accused and Pedro Tagam. Tagam was shot by
Nemesio Llaneta. He did not know the reason. When he arrived at the place where Nemesio Llaneta
and Pedro Tagam were, from a patrol assignment, he saw Tagam already wounded in the left
shoulder, after he had been hit with a "backstroke." Afterwards Tagam, supported by Llaneta, was
taken to the house of Sixto Roxas which was at that time used as officers' quarters. A few minutes
later, Pedro Magdugo conducted an investigation, after which Llaneta together with other soldiers
and Tagam proceeded to a place near the house of Fortunato Jamis where they dug a hole in the
ground. As soon as the hole was dug, Llaneta again hit Tagam with a "backstroke" which accused
Tagam to fall into the hole. Then Magdugo ordered them to cover Tagam with earth. Tagam was still
alive, agonizing and moaning. Pedro Magdugo did not help cover Tagam with earth; he merely
ordered the soldiers to do so. But Nemesio Llaneta did not help the soldiers bury Tagam after he
had given Tagam a 'backstroke." The "backstroke" was delivered with great force. The hole was
about hipdeep. His distance from Tagam, Llaneta and Magdugo when the killing occurred was about
5 meters. Llaneta had a reputation of offering himself to kill persons condemned to be executed, and
it was Magdugo who ordered Llaneta to kill. After the last statement was ordered striken out or being
based on rumors, the witness said he knew personally that Llaneta used to present himself to kill
people whom Magdugo ordered executed. He knew that no one else cared to be appointed
executioner. In fact he himself, although a guerrilla, was afraid of Llaneta. The guerrillas had not yet
been regularly organized at the time. He did not know why Tagam was killed by the accused.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY BORJA

His commanding officer was Pedro Magdugo although the later was only a sergeant. Among his
companions in his detachment were Frisco Galarrita, Ramon Pangca, Frisco Balacuit and others
whom he did not come to know because they were from other places and because the guerrillas at
that time were not yet fully organized. Up to that time the Japs had not used to come to Alubijid, and
that was why there were many civilians living in that town. Some stayed in the town only in the
daytime and stayed out during the night. Tagam had a bullet wound in the left shoulder. The missle
entered in front and came out at the back. The point of exit was very big and the blood was very big
and the blood was gushing out of the wound.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY VAMENTA

He had not reported this killing up to the time he was testifying because he was afraid that he might
be implicated. Soldiers were allowed to witness Tagam's execution, but civilians were not. There
were more than ten soldiers, but because it was getting dark he did not count them. The one who
cause the wound in Tagam's shoulder was Nemesio Llaneta; he says so because at that time the
guerrilla members were not yet furnished with proper arms. There were only a few home-made guns
and the only Enfield rifle was given to Llaneta. He did not actually see Llaneta inflict that wound
because Tagam was already wounded when he saw the latter, but there was no soldier who had rifle
except Llaneta, rifle which Magdugo had entrusted to Llaneta for his use. It was half past six o'clock
in the evening when he saw Tagam being supported by Llaneta. Llaneta was aided by Frisco
Balacuit when Tagam, supported by Llaneta, was taken to the house of Sixto Roxas. Frisco Balacuit
was already a soldier, but he had no arm with which he could shoot Tagam. He does not think
Balacuit shot Tagam because there was no firearm other than that of Llaneta.

Prisco Balacuit, 27 years old. He had known the two accused since before the war. He also knew
Pedro Tagam, who is now dead, shot by order of Pedro Magdugo. Nemesio Llaneta killed Tagam
with an Enfield rifle. He heard two shots. Llaneta was about one meter from Magdugo when he
heard the shots, while Pedro Tagam was about three meters from the two accused. Tagam was
ahead followed by Llaneta and Magdugo. He did not see anything more after he heard the shots
because he was not near the place; he was in the headquarters being a member of the military
police. Llaneta was a private and Magdugo first sergeant of the organization which was not yet fully
organized. At the time this incident took place, he had been guarding Pedro Tagam and Patricio
Sabay. While he was guarding these two men, Magdugo and Llaneta arrived and ordered the
prisoners to be brought out, so he led them out. When Tagam was already outside, Magdugo
ordered the prisoners to follow them to the plaza. In going to the plaza Pedro Tagam was ahead and
Magdugo and Llaneta were behind him. He did not see anybody else follow. Nemesio Llaneta was
carrying an Enfield rifle; Magdugo was not carrying anything. As they were on their way towards the
plaza all of a sudden he heard a shot. He did not know who fired the shot. After hearing the shot, he
just remained in the place where he was a guard. After hearing the shot, he verified what it was and
saw Pedro Magdugo. He went to the scene of the crime and there he found Magdugo, Llaneta,
Rodolfo Carretas and Frisco Balacuit (Galarrita?). Tagam was sprawled on the road in agony. He
was buried at a curb on one side of the road; he saw it. The soldiers covered the grave by command
of Pedro Magdugo. Llaneta did not help cover the hole. Llaneta was carrying a rifle. He (witness)
was about five meters from the grave. there were many persons around but he did not know them.
He only recognized Pedro Magdugo and Nemesio Llaneta, Rodolfo Carretas and Frisco Gallarita.
Tagam was still agonizing when he was burned. Asked who killed Tagam, the witness said he did
not know, Asked again if despite what he had already said, "I am going to tell the truth, it was
Nemesio Llaneta." He did not know who killed Tagam, the witness said, "I am going to tell the truth, it
was Nemesio Llaneta." He did not know why Nemesio killed Tagam. Magdugo was there, about two
meters from Llaneta. He was only ordering his soldiers. Llaneta was one of the soldiers. He did not
know if Magdugo was able to order Llaneta to kill Tagam.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY VAMENTA

Tagam was tied when he was taken to the plaza. They were heading toward the plaza when he saw
Tagam's hands tied and while he remained in the guardhouse. About ten minutes elapsed from the
time he saw Tagam, Magdugo and Llaneta marched in the direction of the plaza until he saw Tagam
lying on the road. Tagam was already wounded and agonizing when he saw him on the road.
Queried how he could tell it was Llaneta who killed Tagam when, as he had stated, Tagam was
already lying on the road wounded and agonizing when he arrived, the witness answered that he
learned from Magdugo himself that it was he who had ordered Llaneta to shoot Tagam.

Q. But have you actually seen Llaneta shoot Tagam, or not? — A. I was there.

Q. In what particular place or spot were you then? — A. I was following them when they
killed Tagam.

Q. In what place did you see the actual shooting of Tagam? — A. I was behind them.

Q. Is it not true that you testified in your direct examination that first you heard two shots and
that you did not actually see the shooting of Tagam? — A. I am confused.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY BORJA

Between the witness and the grave, when the grave was being filled up, were Pedro Magdugo,
Nemesio Llaneta, Rodolfo Carretas and Frisco Galarrita. There were other persons standing around.
It was about 6 o'clock in the evening, already dark. Pedro Tagam's feet were still moving, as if
kicking, when he was being covered with earth. Witness was from Alubijid. He was formerly one of
the accused in this case. When he heard Pedro Magdugo say, as Tagam was being buried, that he
had ordered Llaneta to shoot the deceased, Magdugo was not speaking to him (witness) but to
sergeant Nicasio Lusterio. Those who heard the remark were only the men in the headquarters
where it was made. Besides him and Llaneta nobody else heard Magdugo's remark. Nicasio Lusterio
was a sergeant and lived in Alubijid at the time of the trial. "Ours was the guardhouse while theirs
was the headquarters." At the time Magdugo and Llaneta came to the guardhouse to take the
prisoner, Patricio Sabay was there. Sabay was not brought to the guardhouse.

Palermo Jaramillo, 29 years old. On November 5, 1942, he arrested Pedro Tagam and Patricio
Sabay by order of Pedro Magdugo. The order was given at the headquarters. He brought Tagam
and Sabay to Pedro Magdugo after they were arrested. Magdugo was acting first sergeant and he
(witness) was a corporal, although he acted sometimes as sergeant. Magdugo told him that Tagam
had blasting caps, and that was the reason why he was arrested. It was about three o'clock in the
afternoon Tagam was arrested, and he was turned over to Magdugo at about six o'clock.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY BORJA

Melecio Roxas was the mayor of Alubijid at that time. It was already dark when he delivered the
prisoners to Magdugo. He was not there anymore when Magdugo investigated Sabay and Tagam,
having gone home immediately after the prisoners were delivered to Magdugo.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTORNEY VAMENTA

It was a written order which he received but it had been lost. He received it at two o'clock in the
afternoon. Tagam lived about five kilometers from the headquarters. He had two companions when
he arrested Tagam and Sabay, Jose Labis and another whose name he could not remember.
 EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED NEMESIO LLANETA

Marciano Elarmo, 36 years old. He was a soldier in Alubijid during the guerrilla days. On November
5, 1942, he saw Tagam at the municipal police headquarters brought by soldiers. From there he was
taken to the guardhouse of the army about 100 brazas from the police headquarters. Pedro
Magdugo ordered him to accompany Nemesio Llaneta take Tagam from the municipal police
headquarters to the army guardhouse, but before reaching the army guardhouse, Pedro Tagam ran
away. It was about half past six o'clock in the evening. When Pedro Tagam ran away, Llaneta fired
his gun in the air twice. Then Llaneta chased Tagam while he (witness) went home. Llaneta knew
that he went home; he told Llaneta he wanted to go home because the Japs are expected. He did
not know whether Llaneta overtook Tagam. He learned that Tagam had been killed the following
day.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE FISCAL

Llaneta, Tagam and he did not reach the guardhouse because Llaneta ran away. He saw no other
person at that time. He is sure of it. Patricio Sabay was not there. He saw Tagam on the second
floor of the municipal police building. There were many people there. some of them soldiers. The
headquarters of the municipal police were about 100 meters away from the guardhouse of the army.
The place between the two places was clear of bushes. There were no obstructions except acacia
trees which were high. But there was a corner to be turned before the guardhouse of the army was
reached. He did not see Sabay in the police headquarters, neither did he see Frisco Balacuit or
Rodolfo Carretas. He did not belong to the group of Pedro Magdugo because the bolo battalion of
which he was a member was under the command of the army.

QUESTION BY THE COURT

When Tagam ran away Nemesio Llaneta fired two shots in the air, after which he chased Tagam.
That was the time he separated from Llaneta, notifying Llaneta that he was going home.

Severino Galarrita, 41 years old. He was a municipal policeman on November 5, 1942, and was at
the headquarters of the municipal police of Alubijid. He saw Pedro Tagam while Tagam was
wrestling with Frisco Balacuit. Balacuit thrust his bayonet on Pedro Tagam and hit the latter in the
left side of the stomach. Tagam fell to the ground after which Balacuit stared at him. He asked
Balacuit why he stabbed Tagam and Balacuit answered that it was because Tagam ran away.
Florencio Madredaño was present when he asked Balacuit why he stabbed Tagam. Madredaño was
just looking at the witness and Balacuit. After what he saw Llaneta about five brazas away from him.
He told Llaneta to take charge of the matter and to report it to the headquarters because he
(witness) was going home and had something to do. When he told Llaneta, this, Tagam was already
lying on the ground.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE FISCAL

He was a municipal policeman under guerrilla. There was already a guerrilla organization. Tagam
died in January, 1942. He is sure of it.

When he saw two persons grappling at seven o'clock in the evening, he was on his way home.
Balacuit and Tagam were the only persons he saw. Tagam was being held by Balacuit by the arm.
Tagam tried to push Frisco away with his hand and succeeded. Then Frisco drew his bayonet and
sank it on Tagam. According to his estimate the struggle lasted about three minutes. He watched the
struggle for a while. He asked Frisco Balacuit why he struck Tagam with his bayonet. After asking
that question he saw Llaneta and told Llaneta to take charge of reporting the matter to the
headquarters. It was his duty to report the matter himself, but he was in a hurry to go home because
he had something to do. He had to gather foodstuffs because he was in charge of those things at the
police force. The thrust was sudden so that Tagam did not see it coming. When he left, Tagam was
still bleeding.

QUESTIONS BY THE FISCAL

He related this incident to Pedro Magdugo; aside from that he did not tell to anybody.

Nemesio Llaneta, 28 years old, corporal, Philippine Constabulary. After Pedro Magdugo had finished
investigating Pedro Tagam, Magdugo ordered him to escort Tagam to the guardhouse. On the way
to the guardhouse, when they were about 50 meters from it Tagam ran away. He shouted for him to
stop and fired two shots in the air but Tagam did not stop. After a few minutes, he heard someone
near the edge of the provincial road shout, "He is here," so he approached the place from which the
voice came. There he found Frisco Balacuit, Florencio Madredaño, and Tagam who was lying on the
ground. He had a conversation with Severino Galarrita. Galarrita told him to report the matter to the
authorities, so he did. He reported it to Sgt. Magdugo because his officer was not there at that time.
When he took Tagam to the guardhouse, Marciano Elarmo was with him. He fired two shots in the
air to make Tagam stop running but he did not stop. He chased Tagam but his companions did not
do the same. His companions went home instead. Shortly after he arrived at the place, he saw them
(Balacuit and Florencio Madredaño) and Florencio Madredaño lifted Tagam and he noticed Tagam
had already a wound in the left side of the stomach. While Tagam was on that position, Balacuit
struck him again with a bayonet which pierced his stomach. After that thrust in the stomach, Tagam
died. He reported the matter to Pedro Magdugo upon seeing Tagam dead. He saw Florencio
Madredaño unbotton the white shirt of Tagam and remove it. Madredaño also removed Tagam's
pants and wore them. Frisco Balacuit took the shirt and wore it himself. He is sure that Tagam was
already dead. Pedro Magdugo told him that he was going to take care of the matter himself. Asked if
the dead body of Pedro Tagam was ever buried, he said he learned of it two days after the incident
took place because the Japs had come to Gitagum at that time. He did not participate in the burial of
Tagam. He denies that he ordered a grave to be dug or that he "backstroked" Tagam. He denies that
while Tagam was still alive he covered him with earth by order of Pedro Magdugo.

CROSS EXAMINATION

He did not report the killing to anybody except Magdugo because Magdugo told him that he would
take care of reporting himself. He knew, at that time, that Fiscal Fernandez was investigating his
case but did not tell Fernandez that Frisco Balacuit had killed the deceased; neither did he tell Fiscal
Lagrosas, Coloso and Tengco who had killed Pedro Tagam. After Florencio Madredaño removed
Tagam's pants and put them on, Frisco also removed the shirt and put it on. Afterward, they left
Tagam with nothing but drawers and undershirt on. He actually saw Balacuit stab Tagam. He was
only one meter away. When he arrived at the scene of the killing, Tagam was already lying face
down. Then Balacuit turned him up on his back. When Tagam was on this position, Frisco Balacuit
again stabbed him with his bayonet in the stomach. After stabbing Tagam in the stomach, Frisco
Balacuit kicked him and gave him another thrust in the back for the third time. Tagam was already
dead when Balacuit stabbed him in the back. He found out that Tagam was buried only after the
Japanese left Alubijid. The Japs were in Alubijid on the 8th of September, 1942. In answer to a
question by the court, this accused says that he did not take part in the burial of Tagam; that when
Tagam was killed by Frisco Balacuit, Tagam was under anybody's care; that it is true Tagam was
under his care after his chief ordered him to escort Tagam to the guardhouse, but when Tagam was
killed, he reported the killing to Magdugo. After Tagam was killed, he just left the dead body to
Balacuit and Madredaño; he left Tagam at the hands of his killers because he was afraid, since
Tagam died while he was escorting him. He does not know what Magdugo did after he reported to
Magdugo the killing because Magdugo simply told him that he was going to see the cadaver. He did
not accompany Magdugo to see the cadaver, remaining at the headquarters. In answer to further
questions by the fiscal, Llaneta says; Tagam received only two wounds, both in front of his body, not
three wounds-in the side, in the back and in the stomach. When he arrived, Balacuit and Madredaño
were already beside Tagam and he clearly saw that Tagam had a wound in the left side of the
stomach, and after his bosy was turned up it was again stabbed in the middle of his stomach. Tagam
ran fast when he escaped from his custody; that was the reason why he did not overtake him.

Melecio Roxas, 29 years old. On November 5, 1942, he was connected with the guerrilla
organization stationed in Alubijid and so was Pedro Magdugo. Between 6:30 and 7 o'clock p.m. he
was near the church. He remembers that Pedro Magdugo came to his house an that date for the
main purpose of notifying him of the results of his errand to produce dynamite. He had no rank in the
guerrilla organization, but was given the assignment of procurement agent. Pedro Magdugo was a
sergeant. While Magdugo was on the house, he heard of a report of a gun and he asked Magdugo
what it was. Magdugo said he did not know but went out right away. Subsequently, Magdugo came
back and told him that somebody had been killed and buried. On cross-examination, he says Pedro
Tagam was the man that had been killed, according to Magdugo. Not more than half an hour
elapsed from the time Magdugo left till he came back. He himself did not go out to see what the
matter was. In answer to the question who buried Tagam, he says Magdugo told him he had seen
Frisco Balacuit and Nemesio Llaneta also. Magdugo mentioned no other persons; neither did he ask
him. According to Magdugo's report, the cause of Tagam's death was bullet wounds; two wounds
according to Magdugo, in the front of the body. Frisco Balacuit, Nemesio Llaneta and Florencio
Madredaño were the ones who buried Tagam, According to Magdugo. He did not bother to ask who
shot Tagam because Tagam was already buried. His house about 300 meters, more or less, from
the place where Tagam was killed. According to Magdugo, the two wounds Tagam received were
caused by gunshots. He asked Magdugo who killed Tagam, but Magdugo could not tell him.
According to Magdugo Llaneta was holding a gun; no other person had a gun.

Pedro Magdugo, 37 years old, first lieutenant, Philippine Constabulary. what Rodolfo Carretas
declared is not true, that in the evening of November 5, 1942, he, Magdugo, was near the grave
intended for Pedro Tagam and that he ordered the men there to bury Tagam notwithstanding the
fact that Tagam was still alive. At that time, Rodolfo Carretas was not a member of the organized
guerrilla because he was a mere civilian. He denies what Frisco Balacuit stated, that he, Magdugo,
told Nicasio Lusterio that he had ordered Llaneta to soot Pedro Tagam. He says it was not true, as
Patricio Sabay stated, that he and Nemesio Llaneta took Tagam to the plaza or that he mentioned to
Llaneta, with his left hand to shoot Tagam. He says he ordered the arrest of Pedro Tagam because
there were reports to the effect that Tagam had dynamite in his possession. Sergeant Palermo
Jaramillo of the guerrilla was the man whom he sent out to arrest Tagam. He needed dynamite to
prevent the Japs from penetrating into the area. Pedro Tagam and Patricio Sabay were arrested in
compliance with his order at about six o'clock in the afternoon. His investigation of these men did not
last more than half an hour. After the investigation, he told Llaneta to take Tagam to the guardhouse
for further investigation and he immediately went out to see and inform Lt. Roxas that Tagam,
according to Tagam's affidavit, had already disposed of his dynamite. While in the house of Roxas,
he heard a gunshot and Roxas told him to go out and ascertain what it was. On this way he met
Nemesio Llaneta who told him that Tagam had been killed. He proceeded to the place of the
shooting and there he found several persons around the dead body of Tagam. Tagam's wounds
were bayonet wounds. He questioned Llaneta told him that it was Frisco Balacuit who had inflicted
the wounds. He ordered the burial of Tagam after he had reported the killing to Lt. Roxas. Besides
reporting the killing to Roxas, he submitted a report to his sector commander and another to the
Regimental commander, Limena. The sector commander was Othelo Caballero. Contrary to Rodolfo
Carretas' testimony, he was not the one who ordered the killing of people in Alubijid. There was such
order from him. On November 6, the Japanese invaded Alubijid. When he reported Tagam's death to
Roxas, he did not tell the latter who killed Tagam because he had only been told that Frisco Balacuit
stabbed Tagam; he did not actually see it. What he told Roxas was that Tagam had been killed not
by gunshots. Tagam's wounds were in the left side and in the center of the body. According to
Llaneta, it was Frisco Balacuit who killed Tagam and that was what he told Roxas. Asked by the
court if he informed Roxas that Balacuit had killed Tagam, he answers Roxas did not ask him.
Queried again whether he reported to Roxas that it was Balacuit who killed Tagam, he says he
reported to him that. In answer to further questions by the fiscals, he says he could not explain why
Roxas testified that he, Magdugo, told Roxas who killed Tagam. When he sent Llaneta to escort
Tagam to the guardhouse, Llaneta was carrying a gun. He had not seen any bayonet on that
occasion. Among the persons who buried Tagam he did not see any holding a bayonet. Asked who
buried Tagam, he says he remembers Florencio Madredaño, Frisco Balacuit, Sgt. Cristobal, Sgt.
Meliton Cruz and others. Llaneta was also there helping to bury Tagam. He, Magdugo, was about 50
meters from the crowd. there were many soldiers. It was about ten minutes after he heard the two
shots that he went out of the house to find out what the shots were about. The grave in which Tagam
was buried had a depth about the height of a man, dug already, when he arrived, by the soldiers he
has mentioned. He saw Tagam in that grave. They used bamboos and sticks to dig the grave.
Llaneta was accompanied by Marciano Elarmo when Tagam was conducted to the guardhouse.
Elarmo was a soldier but had no arm. When Tagam was conducted to the guardhouse Patricio
Sabay was at the municipal building from which the guardhouse was about 150 meters distant. He
did not know who the guard was at the guardhouse, whether it was Frisco Balacuit. In answer to the
next question, he says Balacuit was not the guard that time; that the guard was Godofredo Galarrita.
He was not the highest in command of the guerrilla organization at that time. It was one Lt. Othelo
Caballero who is now in Camp Keithley, Lanao. On November 5, 1942, Melecio Roxas was still a
civilian and had no rank except that of procurement officer. He did not see Tagam buried. The
witness' attention being called to his previous statement that he had seen Tagam buried, he says he
had not actually seen him buried because the grave was far from where he was, 15 meters, but from
the place where Tagam was killed the distance of the grave was about three meters. He saw them
carry Tagam's body to the grave. Tagam had only drawers and undershirt on. He had neither short
nor trousers. In answer to questions by the court, he says he was at the headquarters, which was
different from the municipal police headquarters, when he gave the order for Tagam's arrest. When
Tagam was brought to the police headquarters, he was not there. When Tagam and Sabay arrived
at Alubijid, they were brought immediately to the municipal police headquarters while he "was still at
our headquarters." He was informed by someone that Tagam and Sabay had already arrived and he
immediately went to the police headquarters. When he reached the latter place, he began the
investigation as to whether they still had dynamite and they said no. He sent Tagam to the
guardhouse for further investigation because he was told Lt. Caballero that Tagam had still a box of
dynamite.

REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

Frisco Balacuit says it was not true that he stabbed Tagam with a bayonet and wrestled with him. He
says Severino Galarrita was not present at the time. He denies that he removed and used Tagam's
shirt. He declares he was present when Tagam's shirt. He declares he was present when Tagam
died.

Florencio Madredaño 36 years of age. He did not remove the pants of Pedro Tagam; that is a lie. He
denies that Frisco Balacuit stabbed Tagam. What he saw, he says, on that occasion was that
Nemesio Llaneta shot Tagam. That is all. It was not possible for Tagam to run because he was
already hit. He was hit once in the back near the shoulder and the bullet went through his shoulder.
The second shot also hit Tagam and that was almost a close call for him (witness). On cross-
examination by Attorney Borja, the witness says Frisco Balacuit did not stab Tagam with a bayonet;
it was Nemesio Llaneta who did with his bayonet. He did not know why Llaneta stabbed Tagam;
perhaps Llaneta thought it was necessary to finish Tagam. At that time, he could not ask Llaneta
why he stabbed Tagam because he was a mere civilian. He knew Llaneta had a bayonet because
the accused drew it from its scabbard.

It is vigorously asserted by the counsel for Magdugo and the counsel for Llaneta that the testimony
of Patricio Sabay and Frisco Balacuit is sharply conflicting. In their exhaustive and able briefs, they
show from a conscientious analysis of the evidence that Sabay was inconsistent as to the time and
place of his imprisonment, as to the time of his arrest, and as to the slaying.

Frisco Balacuit's testimony also has deserved severe stricture. This witness started by saying that
Llaneta shot Tagam by Magdugo's order. Later, he stated he did not know whether Magdugo
actually ordered Llaneta to shoot the deceased. On cross-examination, he said he knew Tagam had
been shot by Magdugo's order because Magdugo said so at the scene of the crime. But in answer to
a new question he shifted to another position, stating that it was not at the scene of the crime where
Magdugo revealed having given the order but at the guerrilla headquarters; he said Magdugo made
the remark, not to him, as he implied in his previous testimony, but to Nicasio Lusterio, within his
hearing or in his presence. Regarding his whereabouts at the time Tagam was murdered, Balacuit
declared that he remained on guard duty at the guerrilla headquarters and that it was there where he
heard reports of a gun; yet afterward he said he was at the place of the crime, insinuating, without
saying so, that he saw Nemesio Llaneta fire at Pedro Tagam. Still later, he said he was following
Magdugo, Llaneta and Tagam when the shot that killed Tagam was discharged.

It can hardly be denied that Frisco Balacuit was not a forthright witness, to say the least. He clearly
gave the impression that he was withholding material information, not only by his varying answers
but by his own implied admission. Once, when he was reminded that his statement was at war with a
previous one, he said, "I am going to tell the truth," thus giving to understand that he had not been
telling all he knew. It is possible however, that Balacuit's reticence and secretiveness was meant to
protect the accused, one of whom was his former chief and the other his fellow-soldier in the
guerrilla. He was admittedly not a fake witness but one who actually saw the crime, if indeed he was
not an active participant therein. Consciousness of his own guilt as well as consideration for the
defendant's interest may have been responsible for vacillating and changing attitude.

But Sabay had no axe to grind, no reason to temporize for or against the accused and nothing to
conceal. We rather incline to attribute his apparent contradictions to causes other that willfull
prevarication. The confusion regarding the time and place of his imprisonment may have in large
measure arisen from the existence of three houses in which he was questioned or detained — the
municipal police headquarters, the guerrilla officer's headquarters, and the guardhouse. It would
seem that this witness was loosely guarded or restrained, and it was possible that he was able to
slip out of his place of detention when Tagam was taken out to be executed, but was rearrested
afterward. Hence the appearance of more than one place of his confinement and of his having been
arrested more than once. Contributing to the confusion may have been faulty interpretation, the
length of time that had elapsed, the low intelligence of the witness, and the omission to transcribed
portions of his testimony. The last anomaly appears in relation to the testimony of other witnesses.
There are to be found in the record several questions making reference to statements previously
made but which are not in the transcript. On top all this, the case for the prosecution was not
competently presented. No effort seems to have been made to seek clarification from the witnesses
of ambiguous terms and statements and seemingly conflicting answer.

However the case may be, the contradictions noted in the prosecution's proofs do not destroy the
broad outline of the picture painted by the witnesses. Over and above the muddled evidence
regarding the time of Sabay's arrest, the time of Sabay's imprisonment, the manner in which Tagam
was slain and buried, the precise moment and how Balacuit saw or learned of the killing, etc., the
following facts stand out in bold relief, undeniable or undenied: Magdugo was the leader of a
guerrilla organization which was being formed in Alubijid, and Llaneta was his righthand man;
Tagam and Sabay were apprehended at the same time or one soon after the other, to force them to
hand in dynamite which they were supposed to have; they were brought to town at dusk, about six
o'clock p.m., and asked by Magdugo in the police or guerrilla headquarters where they kept the
explosives; as Tagam answered that he had disposed of all the blasting caps he had, Magdugo
ordered Llaneta, who was armed with a rifle, to take the prisoners to the guardhouse for further
questioning, according to the defendants and their witnesses; and not more than one hour
thereafter, between six and seven, Tagam was killed and buried at a curb near or besides the town
plaza.

If we forget for a moment the inconsistencies stressed by the appellants and confine our attention to
the salient facts which are not in serious controversy, the question of who killed Tagam and of
whether or not Magdugo had a direct hand in the murder is greatly simplified.

From the above circumstances, even if no other evidence were available, the natural inference
would be that the two defendants were the authors of the crime, Llaneta by direct participation and
Magdugo by induction — just as the sum total of the prosecution's direct evidence would have it.
With these circumstances fixed in mind, the accounts of the killing by the accused rather than
Sabay's and Balacuit's contradictory evidence largely on collateral details become all-important.
These circumstances place a large degree of burden on the defendants to show that matters turned
out differently from what was to be expected, in the usual course of events, from their undisputed
conduct.

How then, the defendant's and their witnesses' testimony is not much more satisfactory than that of
Sabay and Balacuit. Their testimonies are also highly self-contradictory and contradict each other.
Quite apart from the contradictions, we do not think the appellants' version of the slaying is
plausable. We do not believe that Tagam ran away, or if he did, that he could have gotten far. there
is assurance by Rodolfo Carretas as well as by Balacuit that Tagam's hands were bound, on
account of which it was futile if not impossible for him to escape with success. And there is testimony
supplied by Madredaño and Rodolfo Carretas, besides Sabay, that Tagam was already wounded in
the shoulder at the time Llaneta say Tagam made a dash for freedom. Both Madredaño and Carritas
are, we think, truthful witnesses, and no serious flaws are discernible in their testimony.

Llaneta's story on the alleged escape is highly incredible on the other grounds. It is incredible that he
chased Tagam but did not overtake him. It is incredible that it was not until after "a few minutes" that
he heard someone shout, "He is here," and found Tagam, thank to the shout, stretched on the
ground already wounded and being stabbed by Balacuit. Llaneta perjured himself when he affirmed
that his companions when he conducted Tagam did not help him in the chase and went home
instead. that in the last statement Llaneta was seconded by Marciano Elarmo only makes it evident
that the falsehood was deliberated and planned. It has been seen that Elarmo, who claims to have
accompanied Llaneta was running after Tagam to the guardhouse, swore that after the prisoner ran
off, Llaneta fired his gun twice in the air and Llaneta pursued him; went home not without telling
Llaneta that he was not going with him in the chase; that he decided to go home because the
Japanese were coming; that he did not know whether Tagam had been killed only the following day.
No comment is needed to show that falsity of each and every one of these assertions. They are
contrary to human reactions and behavior.

Granting that Tagam fled or attempted to flee, Llaneta could not have lost sight of him; certainly not
far as long as a few minutes, unable to locate him save for someone's cry. From the point where
Tagam is alleged to have started in his flight to the place where Llaneta said he came upon the
escapee being beaten by Balacuit, there was only a short distance. And the latter place a part of or
very close to the plaza, and there was no brush or other obstruction to hide Tagam from Llaneta's
view, as far as can be gathered from the record. There is no allegation that Tagam deviated from the
short stretch between the two points, nor is there any explanation how Balacuit happened to be
where he allegedly caught Tagam and how he could catch Tagam without Llaneta at least seeing
him take hold of the prisoner.

The two defendants made other statements that are self-contradictory, unbelievable, and
contradicted by their own witnesses, statements which have no mark of being due to errors of
transcription or translation, or misunderstanding. The logical effect of these falsehoods is not merely
negative. Deliberate and studied perjury on the part of accused, even on nonvital particulars, can
mean, as it does mean in this case, troubled and uneasy conscience and an endeavor to cover up
incriminating facts. Subterfuge is not a resort of defendants who have nothing to hide.

At any rate, there is direct and positive evidence from unimpeachable sources which, we think,
clinches the case for the prosecution. Madredaño stated that Llaneta shot Tagam and gave the now
deceased a thrust with his bayonet. Madredaño was not made to elaborate on his testimony, the
reason being perhaps that he was only a witness in rebuttal. Carretas corroborated Madredaño
saying that although he did not see Llaneta shoot Tagam, no one else could have done so as this
accused alone had a gun. Madredaño at least had no motive to commit perjury against the
defendants. Indeed it appears that Madredaño was not introduced before the prosecution rested
because the provincial fiscal discovered him as a material witness only through the defendants' and
their witnesses' reference to him in the course of their examination in chief.

The above direct testimony is corroborated by circumstantial evidence which has already been
mentioned. It is a fact admitted by the accused and affirmed by the witnesses for the prosecution
that there were two gunshots. It is also admitted on all sides that Llaneta was the only man who had
a firearm. We have said that we do not believe Tagam ran away or that the shots were intended
merely to make him stop. The possibility of the shots having been fired in the air eliminated, the
conclusion is inevitable that they were aimed at Tagam. It can not be successfully denied that
Tagam had bullet wounds, at least one in the shoulder. He probably had a bayonet wounds, too,
which may have been inflicted by Balacuit or Llaneta, or both. Any of these theories is tenable. But it
is undoubted that Llaneta alone could have caused the victim's bullet wound or wounds.

If we discard, as we should, the theory that Tagam ran away from the custody of Llaneta; if the killing
was not unforeseen, contrary to what the defendants would have the court believe; and if, as
admitted Magdugo was at the scene of the crime when Tagam was buried, we have to accept as
correct Patricio Sabay's testimony, confirmed by Madredaño and Carretas, that Magdugo was with
Llaneta when Tagam was slain, and we have to conclude from this that the two accused were in
conspiracy. It is immaterial whether or not we believe Sabay regarding the form in which Magdugo
ordered Llaneta to kill Tagam. As a matter of fact, it is quite possible that no express order was given
at the place of or immediately before the killing. Sabay's testimony in this connection may have been
the product of auto-suggestion. But from the circumstances of the case, we think we are justified in
finding that there was a specific order by Magdugo for Llaneta to slay Tagam before the latter was
brought out from the guardhouse. It is significant that Tagam was put in the hands of Llaneta, the
only guerrilla who had a rifle and who was reputed to be the executioner, instead of the men who
had arrested the victim. There could have been no other purpose of Tagam being marched to the
plaza than to liquidate him, and the execution could not have been other than Magdugo's idea and
the result of his decision. It was Magdugo alone who had Tagam apprehended, who had
investigated him, who was bent on getting from him the dynamite which he was believed to possess,
and it was Magdugo alone who could have disposed of the prisoner's life and fate. A mere private
acting under Magdugo's orders, Llaneta would not have dared finish Tagam except upon Magdugo's
direction.
We are of the opinion that the trial court committed no error in finding the appellants guilty of murder
qualified by treachery.

This case was referred to the amnesty commission but that body refused to take cognizance of it on
the ground that the accused denied having any participation in the crime. Moreover, the defendants
disclaimed, rightly, any intention to invoke the amnesty proclamation. Counsel for Magdugo,
however, now insist that the benefit of the amnesty should be applied to the defendants.

The writer of this decision maintained in previous decision, contrary to the view of the majority of the
Court, that it is rank inconsistency for one to justify an act, or seek forgiveness for an act, which
according to him, he has not committed; that amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime and
that when an accused says he has not committed a crime he cannot have any use for amnesty; that
where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the
accused to prove the existence of such conditions; that a petition for amnesty is in the nature of a
plea of confession and avoidance, under which principle the pleader has to confess the allegations
against him before he can be allowed to set out matters which, if true, would defeat the action.

At any rate, the facts established do not bring this case within the terms of the proclamation pleaded.
The proclamation extends its provisions to "all persons who committed any act penalized under the
Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy, or against persons aiding in the
war efforts of the enemy." There is no claim that Tagam was in any aiding in the war efforts of the
Japanese. And the killing was not in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy. It was not
reasonably calculated to produce the needed explosives to blast bridges. As far as Tagam's
dynamite was concerned, whether or not he had the stuff, his death put an end to the search for this
war material.

The defendants have been sentenced to reclusion perpetua, jointly and severally to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and to pay proportionate shares of the costs. The
Solicitor General agrees with the court's sentence except as to the indemnity which, he says, should
be raised to P6,000.

With the modification that the appellants shall pay P6,000 as indemnity instead of P2,000, the
judgment of the lower court is affirmed. They shall also pay one-half of the costs of appeal each.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2188. May 19, 1950.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO GUILLERMO (alias SILVER) ET

AL., Defendants. ANTONIO GUILLERMO (alias SILVER), Appellant.

Antonio V. Raquiza, Antonio V. Villaluz and Severo Malvar for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; WITNESS’ INNATE SENSE OF JUSTICE. — It is less
violent to a witness’ innate sense of justice to try to save a guilty accused than to help convict an innocent
one.

2. AMNESTY; REQUISITES TO INVOKE AMNESTY; PLEA OF CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE. — "Where the
offense charged is a common crime, such as murder, if the defendant desires to obtain the benefits of the
 amnesty proclamation, he must plead it in defense and the evidence must disclose facts showing that his
particular case falls within its scope." cralaw virt ua1aw lib rary

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — 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 bring the crime charged within the scope of the
amnesty proclamation.

DECISION

OZAETA, J.:

An almost unbelievable orgy of bloody executions, reminiscent of the aberrations of the French Revolution,
is revealed by the record of this prosecution. The proofs show that on the night of December 15, 1944, in
the barrio of Ganagan, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, the appellant Antonio Guillermo alias Silver, who styled himself
as "commanding officer" of the bolomen of said municipality, a guerrilla group affiliated to the "15th
Infantry" headed by Major O’Day, beheaded seven helpless citizens whose hands were tied behind their
back, namely: Dominador Ballesteros, Donato Luis, Eusebio Luis, Julian Ventura, Esteban Andres, Santiago
Gerardo and Alfredo Gerrada. The massacre was motivated by the suspicion of the appellant and his
companions (who were not identified and the case against whom was provisionally dismissed) that the said
victims were followers or henchmen of Captain Bueno, the head of a rival guerrilla organization against
which the group to which appellant belonged was then engaged in a war of extermination. Captain Bueno
himself was said to have been killed one or two days after the massacre in question.

The gruesome spectacle is too appalling and sickening to depict in detail. We do not deem that necessary
anyway. Suffice it to say that the testimony of the eyewitnesses Tomasa Ballesteros, disconsolate mother of
the victim Dominador Ballesteros; Domingo Luis, bereaved son of the other victim Donato Luis; and Leoncio
Pedro who, like the first two witnesses, was also apprehended by the men of the appellant and investigated
by the latter in the same place where the victims were killed, convinces us beyond reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the accused.

The perpetration of the seven murders at the time and place above indicated is not disputed. The main issue
raised in this case is the identity of the executioner. One of the distinguishing features of the executioner,
according to the witnesses for the prosecution, was that he wore beard and mustache in those days. The
appellant tried to prove, and insists before this Court, that on the tragic night in question he was in the
barrio of Liptong, Bacarra, and that the brute who executed the seven victims was Lt. Alejandro Bumatnong
alias Sagad who, according to appellant, was the one who wore beard and mustache in those days, but who,
according to evidence, had since passed to the other world. His Honor B. Quitoriano, trial judge, rejected
this pretension (1) because it was easy and convenient to pass the buck to a dead man who could not
defend himself; (2) because the witness Iluminada Foronda, common-law wife of Alejandro Bumatnong,
swore: "He (Alejandro) had no beard or mustache since the time I met him. He had a long hair, but he had
no beard and no mustache" ; and (3) because all the witnesses for the prosecution, who knew the appellant
and saw him on the night in question, he having investigated them also as suspected followers of Captain
Bueno, testified positively that the appellant was the one who wore beard and mustache at that time and
that it was he who beheaded the victims.

We find no sufficient basis upon which to reverse or disturb the finding of the trial court. No motive is
attributed to said witnesses falsely to implicate the appellant. Two of said eyewitnesses, Tomasa Ballesteros
and Domingo Luis, were related to two of the victims within the first degree of consanguinity. Why should
they impute the killing of their beloved to the wrong person. They were more interested than the State itself
in having the guilty punished. On the other hand, the witnesses for the defense who were admittedly
present also at the scene of the crime, were strangers to the victims and were not as much interested in
having their murderer punished. It is less violent to a witness innate sense of justice to try to save a guilty
accused than to help convict an innocent one.
We think therefore that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the witnesses for
the prosecution rather than to that of the witnesses for the defense. The minor defects and contradictions
harped on by counsel for appellant do not, in our view, detract from the veracity of the testimony that the
appellant was the executioner, and not the now deceased Sagad.

An issue raised by appellant for the first time in this appeal is whether he is entitled to the benefits of
Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8. He did not invoke that amnesty before the Guerrilla Amnesty
Commission, nor did he plead it as a defense before the trial court; his defense was not confession and
avoidance but an absolute denial. Even in discussing his 5th assignment of error that the lower court erred
in not extending to him the benefits of said amnesty proclamation, appellant insists that "Lieutenant Sagad
and three other companions took away the ill-fated seven, after which seven persons were decapitated and
buried in a pit without the knowledge or notice of anyone of the surviving prisoners." (P. 34, appellant’s
brief.) In the first place, how can the trial judge be charged with error in not sustaining a defense which
appellant did not plead and prove before him? In the second place, appellant cannot wash his hands of the
crime he imputes to Sagad and at the same time claim the benefits of the amnesty to which, according to
him, Sagad should be entitled.

Apparently realizing the inconsistency and untenability of that position, appellant also contends that granting
for the sake of argument that the accused was the author of the crime, there is proof "that the illstarred
seven were charged of (with) being spies for the Japanese.."

The insincerity and weakness of this last-ditch plea is manifest. Appellant does not claim that he killed the
seven victims because he had proof and believed that they were spies for the Japanese. He merely says
they were charged (by Sagad) with being spies for the Japanese.

In the case of Villa v. Allen (2 Phil. 436), this Court held that "where the offense charged is a common
crime, such as murder, if the defendant desires to obtain the benefits of the amnesty proclamation, he must
plead it in defense and the evidence must disclose facts showing that his particular case falls within its
scope.."

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 bring the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation. (People
v. Llaneta Et. Al., supra, p. 219.) .

At any rate, the amnesty proclamation now invoked is not applicable. We are satisfied from the proofs that
the massacre in question was committed not in furtherance of the resistance movement but in the course of
a fratricidal strife between two rival guerrilla units. That was to hinder and not to further the resistance
against the Japanese enemy. It was a shame! and it would be adding insult to injury to stigmatize the
memory of the unfortunate victims of such lust for power and supremacy as spies and traitors to their
country, in the absence of competent proof that they really were. We spurn the baseless suggestion as rank
injustice.

The trial court found the appellant guilty of seven murders qualified by treachery, without any aggravating
or mitigating circumstances, and sentenced him to suffer reclusión perpetua for each murder and to
indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased in the sum of P2,000.

With the modification as to the indemnity which is hereby raised to P6,000 each and with the understanding
that the duration of the aggregate penalties shall not exceed 40 years in accordance with article 70 of the
Revised Penal Code the sentence appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, indemnity raised.

 MALACAÑAN PALACE
Manila

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROCLAMATION NO. 75

GRANTING AMNESTY TO ACTIVE AND FORMER PERSONNEL OF THE ARMED

FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND THEIR
SUPPORTERS WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES PUNISHABLE UNDER THE
REVISED PENAL CODE, THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND OTHER LAWS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE OAKWOOD MUTINY, THE MARINES STAND-OFF AND
THE MANILA PENINSULA INCIDENT

WHEREAS, it is recognized that certain active and former personnel of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and their
supporters have or may have committed crimes punishable under the Revised Penal
Code, the Articles of War and other laws in connection with, in relation or incident to the
July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and the
November 29, 2007 Manila Pen Incident;

WHEREAS, there is a clamor from certain sectors of society urging the President to
extend amnesty to said AFP personnel and their supporters;

WHEREAS, Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution expressly vests the President the
power to grant amnesty;

WHEREAS, the grant of amnesty in favor of the said active and former personnel of the
AFP and PNP and their supporters will promote an atmosphere conducive to the
attainment of a just, comprehensive and enduring peace and is in line with the
Government’s peace and reconciliation initiatives;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by virtue

of the powers vested in me by Section 19, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution, do
hereby DECLARE and PROCLAIM:

SECTION 1. Grant of Amnesty. – Amnesty is hereby granted to all active and former
personnel of the AFP and PNP as well as their supporters who have or may have
committed crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the Articles of War or
other laws in connection with, in relation or incident to the July 27, 2003 Oakwood
Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and the November 29, 2007 Manila
Peninsula Incident who shall apply therefor; Provided that amnesty shall not cover rape,
acts of torture, crimes against chastity and other crimes committed for personal ends.

SECTION 2. Where to Apply. – The concerned AFP and PNP personnel and their
supporters may apply for amnesty under this Proclamation with the ad hoc committee
Department of National Defense (DND) which is hereby tasked with receiving and
processing applications – including oppositions thereto, if any – for amnesty pursuant to
this proclamation and determining whether the applicants are entitled to amnesty
pursuant to this proclamation. The final decisions or determination of the DND shall be
appealable to the Office of the President by any party to the application. The decision,
however, shall be immediately executory even if appealed.

SECTION 3. Period of Application. – Applications for the grant of amnesty under this
proclamation shall be filed under oath with the DND within a period of ninety (90) days
following the date of the publication of this proclamation in two (2) newspapers of
general circulation as concurred in by a majority of all members in Congress. The DND
shall forthwith act on the same with dispatch.

SECTION 4. Effects. –

(a) Amnesty pursuant to this proclamation shall extinguish any criminal liability for acts
committed in connection, incident or related to the July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the
February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and the November 29, 2007 Peninsula Manila Hotel
Incident without prejudice to the grantee’s civil liability for injuries or damages caused to
private persons.

(b) Except as provided below, the grant of amnesty shall effect the restoration of civil
and political rights or entitlement of grantees that may have been suspended, lost or
adversely affected by virtue of any executive, administrative or criminal action or
proceedings against the grantee in connection with the subject incidents, including
criminal conviction or any form, if any.

(c) All enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the rank of up to
Technical Sergeant and personnel of the PNP with the rank of up to Senior Police
Officer 3, whose applications for amnesty would be approved shall be entitled to
reintegration or reinstatement, subject to existing laws and regulations. However, they
shall not be entitled to back pay during the time they have been discharged or
suspended from service or unable to perform their military or police duties.

(d) Commissioned and Non-commissioned officers of the AFP with the rank of Master
Sergeant and personnel of the PNP with the rank of at least Senior Police Officer 4
whose application for amnesty will be approved shall not be entitled to remain in the
service, reintegration or reinstatement into the service nor back pay.

(e) All AFP and PNP personnel granted amnesty who are not reintegrated or reinstated
shall be entitled to retirement and separation benefits, if qualified under existing laws
and regulation, as of the time separation, unless they have forfeited such retirement
benefits for reasons other than the acts covered by this Proclamation. Those
reintegrated or reinstated shall be entitled to their retirement and separation benefit
upon their actual retirement.
SECTION 5. Repealing Clause. – This proclamation supersedes Proclamation No. 50
issued on 11 October 2010 which hereby deemed recalled.

SECTION 6. Effectivity. – This Proclamation shall take effect upon concurrence of a

majority of all the Members of the Congress.

DONE in the City of Manila, 24th day of November in the year of our Lord, Two
Thousand and Ten.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

Executive Secretary

TIMELINE: Trillanes, from

mutiny to amnesty
(UPDATED) In his continuing legal saga from 2003 to present, Senator Antonio
Trillanes IV scores a major victory on October 22, 2018, after a Makati court rejects a
government petition for his non-bailable arrest

Michael Bueza and Alex Evangelista

Published 3:30 PM, September 15, 2018
Updated 5:02 PM, October 22, 2018

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Coup d'etat and rebellion charges against Senator
Antonio Trillanes IV were once again in the spotlight, after President Rodrigo Duterte
signed on August 31 a proclamation revoking the amnesty granted to the opposition
senator in 2011.

Here's a rundown of what happened to Trillanes, from the mutiny that started it all,
leading up to the voiding of his amnesty.

2003
Rumors have been circulating about junior military officers planning to take action
against reported corruption in the armed forces. Among their grievances are the lack of
housing and incentives for soldiers, low pay, and the supposed "micromanagement" of
then-defense secretary Angelo Reyes.

It is also reported that Senator Gringo Honasan has been "advising" these restive
officers. Honasan is a former member of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement
(RAM) which spearheaded the coup attempts against the Cory Aquino administration.

July 27

Lieutenant Senior Grade Antonio Trillanes IV of the Philippine Navy and over 300 junior
officers from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) take over the posh Oakwood
Premier (now Ascott Makati) in Ayala Center to protest the alleged corruption in the
administration of then-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, as well as in the military.
General Narciso Abaya is AFP chief at this time.

After declaring a state of rebellion, Arroyo sends a team led by special envoy Roy
Cimatu to negotiate with the soldiers known as the Magdalo group.

The mutiny lasts 18 hours, ending with the surrender of Trillanes and the soldiers. They
are detained in Fort Bonifacio in Taguig, and later charged before a military court with
violation of the Articles of War.

August 1

The Department of Justice (DOJ) files coup d'etat charges against 321 mutineers before
the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

October 29

An AFP pre-trial investigation panel initially recommends that the mutineers be charged
before a military court for violating Articles 63, 64, 67 (mutiny), 96, and 97 of the Articles
of War.

Later, Colonel Julius Magno, officer-in-charge of the Judge Advocate General’s Office,
reviews the findings and recommends that 29 Oakwood mutineers be prosecuted
before a military court for violating Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman) of the Articles of War.

October 30

The DOJ amends its case to pursue charges against only 31 soldiers, including
Trillanes.
December 16

The mutineers face a consolidated coup d'etat case that lands in the sala of RTC
Branch 148 Judge Oscar Pimentel.

2004
June 17

Magno’s recommendation is “approved by the AFP top brass.”

2006
February 26

Some officers of the Philippine Marines are engaged in a 6-hour standoff in their
headquarters in Fort Bonifacio. They protest the replacement of Major General Renato
Miranda as Marines commandant.

Senior military officers tag Colonel Ariel Querubin and Brigadier General Danilo Lim as
the leaders.

2007
February 6

Trillanes files a certificate of candidacy to run for senator. He campaigns from jail as an
independent candidate under the Genuine Opposition/United Opposition.

Opinion polls by the Social Weather Stations from February 22 to 27 show Trillanes
starting below the top 12, with only 12% support from registered voters.

May 3
Then-AFP chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr signs DND General Orders 515, recognizing
Trillanes’ resignation as of February 6, 2007, when he filed his candidacy for senator.
Esperon cites a provision in the Omnibus Election Code.

May 14

Trillanes wins a seat in the Senate. He ranks 11th in the polls, with over 11 million
votes.

June 15

Trillanes is proclaimed senator-elect.

July 30

The Makati RTC denies Trillanes' plea to attend Senate sessions.

August 28-29

On August 28, the Philippine Navy details Trillanes’ major service clearance which
certifies that he has been “cleared of money/property accountabilities” in connection
with his ipso facto resignation effective February 6, 2007.

The next day, the Philippine Navy gives Trillanes his last pay as an officer.

November 29

Trillanes, Lim, and other Magdalo soldiers walk out during a hearing of their coup d'etat
case before a Makati RTC. They proceed to the Manila Peninsula hotel, also in Ayala
Center, where they hold a press conference calling for Arroyo's ouster.

The soldiers and their supporters then occupy the hotel. Government troops storm the
hotel in an attempt to arrest them. Trillanes, Lim, and some officers eventually
surrender to end the 6-hour siege. Others flee from authorities.

December 3

The DOJ files rebellion charges against Trillanes and 35 others in connection with the
Manila Peninsula siege. The case is filed at the Makati City RTC Branch 150 under
Judge Elmo Alameda. This is the second case against Trillanes and many of the siege
participants who also joined the Oakwood mutiny.
 2009
July 2

Magdalo files for accreditation as a political party before the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) to participate in the party list elections in May 2010, as represented by its
chairman Trillanes.

October 27

Comelec rejects Magdalo’s application as a political party due to the members'

participation in the Oakwood mutiny. The poll body says the organization’s founders
“still harbor the propensity to engage in another illegal adventure similar to the failed
mutiny 6 years ago should they again fail to achieve their goal.”

November 27

Trillanes’ co-mutineer, then-Army Brigadier General Danilo Lim, files a certificate of

candicacy for senator as an independent. Lim is part of the Liberal Party slate as a
guest candidate.

Lim loses in the May 10, 2010 senatorial elections, ranking 17th.

2010
October 11

Then-president Benigno Aquino III signs Proclamation No. 50, which grants amnesty to
active and former AFP members and their supporters who have been involved in the
2003 Oakwood mutiny, the 2006 Marines standoff, and the 2007 Manila Peninsula
siege.

The amnesty is signed “to promote an atmosphere conducive to the attainment of a just,
comprehensive and enduring peace and in line with the Government’s peace and
reconciliation initiatives.”
The proclamation “shall extinguish any criminal liability” of the parties involved, granted
that it “shall not cover rape, acts of torture, crimes against chastity and other crimes
committed for personal ends.”

November 24

Aquino signs Proclamation No. 75, superseding Proclamation No. 50. The new
proclamation includes in the amnesty granted the members of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) involved in the mutinies.

December 13-14

The House of Representatives and the Senate concur with Proclamation 75

through Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

December 20

Days after the amnesty proclamation takes effect, Trillanes is freed from detention.
Trillanes vows to support Aquino and his administration following his release.

2011
January 5

Pursuant to Proclamation No. 75, Trillanes applies for amnesty at the Office of the
Committee Secretariat of the Department of National Defense (DND) Ad Hoc Amnesty
Committee. In the application form filed under oath, he admits to his
"involvement/participation and guilt" in the Oakwood mutiny and the Manila Peninsula
siege.

From January 4 to 7, a total of 38 military officers and 53 enlisted personnel involved in

the mutinies file their applications. According to the documents, the committee has
recognized all applications “to be in order” after careful review and deliberation.

January 21

The DND grants Trillanes amnesty after approving his application.

September 7
Citing the amnesty, Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati City RTC Branch 150 dismisses the
rebellion charge against Trillanes.

September 21

Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Rita Bascos Sarabia of Makati City RTC Branch 148 junks
the coup d'etat case against Trillanes, pursuant to his amnesty grant. (LOOK: Trillanes
shows proof of amnesty application)

2013
May 13

Trillanes wins a second term as senator, placing 9th with over 14 million votes. His
candidacy also marks the first time he campaigned outside detention.

The Magdalo Para Sa Pilipino party list – allowed to join the party-list elections this time
around – also secures two seats in the House of Representatives with around 567,000
votes. Its first two nominees are Gary Alejano and Francisco Ashley Acedillo, who were
also part of the Oakwood mutiny and the Manila Peninsula siege.

2015
October 14

Trillanes files his certificate of candidacy for vice president under the Nacionalista Party
for the 2016 polls. He is not in tandem with a presidential candidate.

2016
April 29
Trillanes dares then-presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte to sign a waiver that would
open his bank accounts for public scrutiny, in relation to the Davao City mayor's alleged
undeclared P211 million. Duterte has since refused to do so.

May 5

Trillanes files a plunder complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The senator says a possible source of the alleged P2.4-billion worth of deposits to
Duterte's bank accounts is a scheme involving supposed "ghost employees" of the
Davao City government when Duterte was its mayor. Earlier, he hints that the money
could have come from alleged illegal drug operations.

May 9

Duterte wins the presidency in the 2016 polls.

Meanwhile, Trillanes loses his vice presidential bid, ranking 5th among all
candidateswith 868,501 votes. However, he remains a senator, as his candidacy did not
require him to resign from his post.

September 19

Trillanes files Senate Resolution No. 9, which seeks to include the alleged Davao Death
Squad (DDS) killings in the probe of summary executions under the Duterte
administration.

September 26

In a privilege speech, Trillanes calls Duterte a “mass murderer” over the alleged Davao
Death Squad killings, and highlights the need for an investigation to protect people’s
rights amid the ongoing drug war.

2017
January 16

The Senate strips Trillanes of powers to probe the Bureau of Immigration corruption
scandal involving two officials who allegedly received bribes from gambling tycoon Jack
Lam through Wally Sombero.
At the time, Trillanes handled the case as head of the Senate committee on civil service
and government reorganization. Senator Richard Gordon insists that the committee on
justice will handle it instead.

February 16

Trillanes revives his previous allegations against Duterte by showing the

mediasupposed bank transactions that "prove" the President had over P2.4 billion in
several Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) accounts, one at the branch in Julia Vargas
in Ortigas, Pasig City.

February 20

In a press conference organized by Trillanes and the Free Legal Assistance Group,
former Davao cop Arturo "Arthur" Lascañas recants his previous statements against
alleged DDS hitman Edgar Matobato, and confesses that he was a member of the
infamous DDS.

February 27

Solicitor General Jose Calida says he will file charges against Trillanes for “coddling”
Lascañas and other supposed DDS members.

September 11

In a press conference, Trillanes presents copies of 12 signed bank secrecy waiversthat

he submitted to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) and the Office of the
Ombudsman in a bid to disprove Duterte's allegations that the senator had offshore
bank accounts.

September 22

Trillanes files libel complaints and administrative complaints against Communications

Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson for allegedly spreading "fake news" about his
supposed offshore bank accounts. He also threatens to sue radio commentator Erwin
Tulfo and Ben Tesiorna for libel on the same grounds.

2018
February 16
Trillanes calls for a Senate probe into the AMLC’s refusal to cooperate in the
investigation into the plunder complaint against Duterte.

A day before, February 15, the Ombudsman terminates its probe as it could not get
sufficient data and records on Duterte’s BPI bank accounts.

May 16

Trillanes files Senate Resolution No. 735, seeking an investigation into the Presidential
Communications Operations Office's alleged misuse of P647.11 million for an
information caravan during the country’s chairmanship of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2017.

July 13

Trillanes says the Philippine National Police removed his security detail. The
PNP explains that it is part of a “comprehensive review” of its assignments, where they
reevaluate the list of VIPs who receive police guards.

August 31

President Duterte signs Proclamation No. 572, declaring Trillanes’ amnesty “void ab
initio” or invalid from the start. One reason cited for revoking the amnesty is “insufficient”
admission of guilt by the former Navy officer.

In addition, a certification issued by the military the day before, August 30, shows that
"there is no available copy" of Trillanes' amnesty application. (READ: DND has another
explanation for Trillanes' missing amnesty papers)

In the proclamation, Duterte orders the AFP and the PNP to immediately arrest the
senator.

September 4

The Manila Times publishes a copy of the proclamation in its advertisement section,
revealing the existence of the document to the public for the first time.

The Department of Justice files applications before the Makati City RTC Branch 148for
an alias warrant and a Hold Departure Order against Trillanes to keep him inside the
country.
Trillanes requests to be put under Senate custody until all legal remedies are exhausted
following the arrest order. Senate President Vicente Sotto III assures his colleague and
his supporters that no arrests will be allowed inside the Senate halls “to preserve the
dignity of the Senate.”

On the same day, Trillanes shows proof of his application for amnesty during a privilege
speech.

Meanwhile, DND spokesperson Arsenio Andolong says the agency is searching for the
senator's missing amnesty papers. Andolong also claims that the amnesty reverts
Trillanes "to active duty."

The AFP confirms that it was Solicitor General Jose Calida who led the review for the
amnesty application papers.

September 5

The DOJ fails to obtain an arrest warrant from Makati City RTC Branch 148, where the
coup d'etat charge against Trillanes was filed. The court gives Trillanes 5 days to file his
comment on the DOJ request.

Military and police personnel return to the Senate premises despite the lack of an arrest
warrant, prompting some legislators to question the “militarization” of the Senate.

Opposition members of the House of Representatives also file a resolution calling on

the House to denounce the "baseless, unlawful, and improvident" revocation of an
amnesty order.

On the status of the missing amnesty application papers, the DND says the papers may
be “completely lost” as the office had undergone several renovations before. Rappler,
however, obtained documents showing that the DND recognized and approved
Trillanes’ application.

Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman floats the idea that the papers may
have been “maliciously concealed or deliberately destroyed.”

September 6

Trillanes files a petition for certiorari with a request for a temporary restraining order
(TRO) before the Supreme Court to stop Duterte’s order revoking his amnesty. He says
the President’s decision should "alarm" SC justices.
The opposition senator also vows to run after Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra,
Calida, and other DND officials "when the right time comes."

September 7

Tensions rise as rumors spread about a possible military arrest while the nation is
asleep, but no arrest happens.

The DOJ tries to get an arrest warrant from Makati City RTC Branch 150, which earlier
heard the rebellion charges against Trillanes.

The DND says it will wait for the SC to decide on the TRO petition filed by Trillanes.

Meanwhile, Duterte changes his tune on Trillanes' arrest, as he decides to wait for the
courts to issue a warrant instead, according to Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque.

September 8

The President defends the "bright" Calida's initiative to research on the amnesty papers.

He also claims that former defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin committed "usurpation of
authority" in granting amnesty to Trillanes.

September 9

AFP chief Carlito Galvez reminds troops to adhere to the rule of law and to “obey the
chain of command.” Senator Gregorio Honasan II, a former soldier, echoes his
sentiments.

September 10

Judge Alameda of Makati City RTC Branch 150 does not issue an arrest warrantagainst
Trillanes, and instead sets a hearing on the DOJ's request.

September 11

The SC denies Trillanes' request for a TRO,

The attention now shifts to the two Makati RTCs that will hear the DOJ’s motions for a
warrant of arrest.
September 14

Makati RTC Branch 150 judge Elmo Alameda defers decision on the DOJ’s request to
issue an arrest warrant against Trillanes, giving both camps more time to file for
pleadings.

Alameda also asks Trillanes to present a copy of the actual amnesty application form to
further establish facts. Trillanes has yet to locate his copy.

September 25

Makati police, led by Senior Superintendent Rogelio Simon, arrest Trillanes hours after
Alameda grants the DOJ's request for a hold departure order and an arrest warrant for
his charge of rebellion.

Trillanes posts a P200,000-bail at the Makati City Central Police Station on the same
day. He remains in the Senate as he awaits the decision on coup d’etat charges filed at
Makati RTC Branch 148.

October 22

Makati RTC Branch 148 Judge Andres Soriano denies the DOJ’s motion for an arrest
warrant over previously dismissed coup d’etat charges against the senator. The
decision comes after more than 3 weeks of hearings and pleadings on the case.–
Rappler.com

Trillanes' general admission of

guilt insufficient for amnesty
grant: DOJ
Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Sep 20 2018 10:03 PM

MANILA - A general admission of guilt, contrary to the claim of embattled opposition Sen. Antonio
Trillanes IV, is not enough to warrant a grant of a valid amnesty, according to the Department of
Justice (DOJ).

State prosecutors said the rebel soldiers involved in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, 2006 Marines
standoff, and 2007 Manila Peninsula siege are also required to attach a “narration of facts of his
(soldier’s) involvement/participation" aside from checking boxes on the official amnesty application
form and signing the form as an acknowledgment that their involvement violated the 1987
Constitution, criminal laws, and the Articles of War.

The DOJ submitted to the Makati RTC Branch 150 a sample official amnesty application form,
pursuant to Proclamation No. 75, dated November 24, 2010, issued by then-President Benigno
Aquino III who allowed amnesty to be given to rebel soldiers involved in the three uprisings.

The sample form was attached as an annex to the DOJ’s reply to Trillanes’ comment-opposition to
the motion of state prosecutors for issuance of arrest warrant and hold departure order against the
lawmaker in Malacañang’s bid to pursue his criminal prosecution.
DOJ annexes sample official amnesty application form, pursuant to Procla. No. 75,
dated Nov. 24, 2010, to its reply to Sen. Trillanes’ opposition to arrest warrant and HDO
plea to prove Trillanes’ claim of ‘general admission of guilt’ not enough for amnesty
grant.
President Rodrigo Duterte ordered the DOJ and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to pursue
criminal and administrative cases against Trillanes following the nullification of his amnesty.

Duterte, through a proclamation, voided Trillanes' amnesty due to the reported absence of his
compliance with requirements such as filling up of a standard application form and a written
admission of guilt for his participation in the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and 2007 Manila Peninsula
siege.

Under item 26 of the sample official amnesty application form, and below the boxes the soldier had
to check (i.e., participation in (1) 2003 Oakwood mutiny, (2) 2006 Marines standoff; and (3) 2007
Manila Peninsula siege), is found a note that reads:

“NOTE: Applicant shall submit a narration of facts of his involvement /participation as annex A.”

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra had said this detailed narration of facts of
involvement/participation in the uprisings had to be under oath or sworn to.

Also, under item 32 (’Verification’ portion) of the application form, the applicant had to sign below a
line that reads:

“I hereby certify that I have read and prepared the foregoing data and the facts contained in my
attached ‘narration of facts of involvement/participation,’ and that the same are true to the best of my
personal knowledge.”

It may be recalled that in media interviews, Trillanes has repeatedly said the application form
contains a “general admission of guilt.” He also said the checking of the above-stated boxes would be
compliance with the guilt admission requirement.

Both the coup and rebellion cases were dismissed in September 2011 in light of the amnesty grant.

The DOJ insists the separate judgments are now considered “void” because the amnesty no longer
has any legal leg to stand on in light of its voiding ab initio (from the beginning).

Trillanes may still file a rejoinder to the DOJ’s reply.

The staunch Duterte critic maintains his amnesty may no longer be withdrawn and accused Mr.
Duterte of trying to silence a political foe.