Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

G.R. Nos.

77317-50 July 29, 1987

MADID MACAGA-AN ET AL
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The 22 petitioners were charged and convicted in 33 cases for estafa through
falsification of public and commercial documents in a decision of the
Sandiganbayan.

Petitioners claim that they had been given amnesty by former President F. E. Marcos
and that their applications for amnesty were issued pursuant to Sec. 1 of
Presidential Decree No. 1082 (dated Feb. 2, 1977) which entitles those who have
committed any act penalized by existing laws in the furtherance of their resistance
to the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines.

Respondent Sandiganbayan argued that the benefits of amnesty were never available
to the petitioners under P.D. No. 1182 (dated Aug. 21, 1977) and that nowhere has
it been demonstrated that the insurgents have been convicted of acts constituting
crimes against public order in order to entitle them.

The petitioners now seek certiorari to review and set aside the extended resolution
of the Sandiganbayan, claiming that Presidential Decree No. 1082 should apply to
them.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not any act done in furtherance of resistance to the duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines constitute Crimes Against Public
Order?

2. Whether or not the petitioners committed any act in furtherance of resistance to


the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines?

RULING:
P.D. No. 1082 continued to subsist notwithstanding the promulgation of P.D. No.
1182, as amended. The proviso in the exception clause is particularly opaque.

1. Yes. The "resistance to the duly constituted authorities of the Republic"


referred to in PD 1082 is typified by the offenses of rebellion or insurrection or
sedition or conspiracy to commit rebellion or sedition, all offenses with a
political character and all of which are embraced in Title 3 of the Revised Penal
Code entitled "Crimes Against Public Order. "

2.No. There is nothing in the decisions of Sandiganbayan to indicate that the acts
with which they were charged and for which the accused were convicted were
committed "in the furtherance of resistance to the duly constituted authorities of
the Republic of the Philippines." On the contrary, the acts of which the accused
were convicted were ordinary crimes without any political complexion and consisting
simply of diversion of public funds to private profit.

Petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the respondent Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED.