Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Vera v People (1963)

Petitioners: Gaudencio Vera and 5 other former guerillas


Respondents: People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

Executive clemency

SUMMARY: Vera and other former guerillas were accused of kidnapping and murdering a
member of a rival guerilla group during the Japanese occupation. The Court held that they
cannot avail of the benefits of amnesty because they did not admit that they committed the
crime.

FACTS:
● WW2: Filipino guerillas fought Japanese.
● There was a rivalry between General Gaudencio Vera's Guerilla Party and the Hunter's
ROTC Guerilla organization.
● 1945 - Amadeo Lozanes of the Hunters was kidnapped and murdered.
● 1946 - Amnesty Proclamation 8 was, uh, proclaimed.
○ It applied to persons who committed felonies in furtherance of the resistance to the
Japanese invaders.
● DOJ Administrative Order (AO) 144 was issued.
○ It provides that, for the amnesty to be applicable to a person, he/she must claim
VERBALLY or IN WRITING that he committed the felony in furtherance of the
resistance.
● Vera and the other petitioners were accused of the kidnap and murder of Lozanes.
● Petitioners invoked the benefits of the amnesty.
● The case was referred to the Eighth Guerilla Amnesty Commission.
● None of the petitioners admitted involvement in the kidnap and murder.
● The Amnesty Commission held that it could not take cognizance of the case, because the
benefits of the amnesty could be invoked only by defendants who admit commission of the
crime.
● The Amnesty Commission said:
○ They are convinced that the motive for the crime is the rivalry between Vera's group and
the Hunters.
○ In any case, whoever murdered Lozanes cannot avail of the amnesty, because the
murder was not done in furtherance of the resistance to the Japanese invaders, as was
required by Amnesty Proclamation 8.
● Petitioners appealed to CA, arguing that they should be allowed to avail of the amnesty
because they had IMPLIEDLY admitted participation in the murder.
○ But CA pointed out that DOJ AO 144 requires that the admission of involvement in the
crime be verbal or written, not implied.

ISSUE:
● WoN persons who wish to avail of the benefit of amnesty should first admit having
committed the crime of which they were accused - YES
○ Petitioners claim that they don't need to admit involvement in the crime to avail of the
benefits of amnesty.
■ They cite Barrioquinto v Fernandez, Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte v De los Santos,
and Viray v Amnesty Commission.
○ SC: But those cases have been overruled by People v Llanita and People v Guillermo,
wherein it was held that "amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime... The pleader
admits the allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of
intervening facts..."

NOTES:
● CA decision is affirmed.

S-ar putea să vă placă și