Power to Pardon & Grant Amnesty – Barrioquinto v. Fernandez – GR L-1278, 01/21/49 – Feria, J.

Facts: Loreto Barrioquinto and Norberto Jimenez instituted an action for mandamus against Enrique Fernandez, Antonio
Belmonte, and, Felicismo Ocampo of the 14th Guerrilla Amnesty Commission. Jimenez and Barrioquinto were charged for
murder; Jimenez was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment while Barrioquinto had yet to be arrested.

Before the period of appeal expired, Jimenez learned of Proc 8, issued on 09/07/46 by Pres Manuel Roxas, which grants
amnesty in favor of all persons who may be charged with acts penalized by the RPC in furtherance of the resistance to the
enemy or against persons aiding the war efforts against the enemy. The acts committed must be during the period from
12/08/41 to the date when each area of the Philippines was liberated from enemy control/occupation.

Jimenez and Barrioquinto submitted their cases to the Guerilla Amnesty Commission. The GAC then issued an order on
01/09/47 to return the cases to the CFI Zamboanga without deciding whether the two were entitled to the benefits of
Proc 8 on the ground that neither of them has admitted to committing murder. Barrioquinto merely alleged that Hipolito
Tolentino killed the victim; hence, they can’t invoke amnesty.

Issue: Can Jimenez and Barrioquinto invoke amnesty?

Held: Yes

Amnesty is distinguished from pardon.

Pardon is granted by the President and is a private act that must be pleaded and proven by the person pardoned; this is
because courts don’t receive notice of pardons. Pardon is granted to one after conviction. Pardon looks forward and
relieves the offender from the consequences of an offence he was convicted for; it abolishes/forgives the punishment.
For that reason, in Art 36 RPC, “A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.”

Amnesty is done by Proclamation of the President with the concurrence of Congress; it’s a public act which courts take
judicial notice. Amnesty is granted to classes of persons/communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally
before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Amnesty looks backward and
abolishes the offense itself; it’s as if the offender committed no offense at all.

In order for one to be entitled to the Amnesty Proclamation, it’s not necessary to admit to the criminal offense and/or
allege the amnesty as a defense. It’s sufficient that the evidence shows the offense committed is within the terms of the
proclamation. Hence, it’s 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 didn’t confess to the charges against him, he may be declared by the
courts or the Amnesty Commissions as being entitled to amnesty; courts to take judicial notice of amnesty after all.

The right to the benefits of amnesty can’t be waived. Because it’s of public interest that a person who is regarded by the
Amnesty Proclamation not only as innocent but a patriot; patriots shouldn’t be punished as criminals. Furthermore, there’s
no need for the accused to admit to the offense because the Amnesty Commission must investigate if the alleged act
entitles them to amnesty. AO 11, which established the Amnesty Commissions on 10/02/46, states that all cases pending
in CFIs with invocations of the Amnesty Proclamation, and, decided cases but not yet appealed should be brought to the
7th Amnesty Commission. Lastly, Barrioquinto’s allegation that someone else killed the victim doesn’t bar the Amnesty
Commission from determining whether if he and Jimenez are entitled to amnesty.

Wherefore, the Amnesty Commission are ordered to proceed to hear and decide the applications of amnesty by the
accused.