### Facts:
1. **Initial Complaint and Plea**:
– July 23, 1954: Complaint for kidnapping with murder filed by Sgt. Francisco G. de Asis in Unisan, Quezon.
– December 20, 1954: Accused including Tagumpay Nanadiego entered a plea of not guilty.
– December 22, 1954: Case elevated to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon.
2. **Information Filed**:
– February 23, 1955: Provincial Fiscal filed information charging accused with kidnapping and murder.
3. **Referral to Amnesty Commissions**:
– May 11, 1955: Petition for case referral to Amnesty Commission by Provincial Fiscal.
– June 12, 1956: 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission found the defendants didn’t admit the crime, remanding case to CFI.
4. **Appeals and Affirmations**:
– July 20, 1956: Defendants’ motion for reconsideration denied.
– January 31, 1963: Supreme Court affirmed that amnesty requires admission of guilt.
5. **Amnesty Grant and Motion to Quash**:
– July 7, 1959: AFP Amnesty Commission granted amnesty to defendant Nanadiego.
– January 11, 1965: Nanadiego filed a motion to quash the information on grounds of granted amnesty.
– January 23, 1965: CFI dismissed the case against Nanadiego.
6. **Prosecutor’s Appeal and Continued Trial**:
– February 11, 1965: Prosecutor filed notice of appeal.
– Subsequent motions and orders for setting trial dates, most notably granting prosecution’s motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence for other accused but not Nanadiego.
### Issues:
1. **Validity of Amnesty Grant**:
– Whether the AFP Amnesty Commission validly granted amnesty to Tagumpay Nanadiego.
2. **Double Jeopardy Claim**:
– Whether retrying Nanadiego would constitute double jeopardy.
3. **Dismissal by the Trial Court**:
– Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case against Nanadiego.
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Validity of Amnesty Grant**:
– The AFP Amnesty Commission validly acquired jurisdiction over Nanadiego’s amnesty application on July 26, 1954, earlier than the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission.
– Amnesty looks backward, abolishing the offense itself, so Nanadiego stands as if no crime was committed.
2. **Double Jeopardy**:
– Discussed but primary focus on the validity of the amnesty grant.
3. **Dismissal by the Trial Court**:
– Affirmed that the trial court did not err in dismissing the case, citing lack of grave abuse of discretion.
– Cites Rule 117, Sec. 2 and RPC Article 89 on extinguishment of criminal liability through amnesty.
### Doctrine:
– **Amnesty and Jurisdiction**: When courts or commissions have concurrent jurisdiction, the one that first acquires it retains it to the exclusion of others.
– **Effect of Amnesty**: Amnesty obliterates the offense as though it were never committed. It is a public act to be judicially noticed by courts.
### Class Notes:
– **Amnesty (Art. 89, Revised Penal Code)**: Extinguishes criminal liability and its effects.
– **Concurrent Jurisdiction**: First acquiring body retains exclusive jurisdiction.
– **Rulings on Appeals (Doctrine)**:
– Jurisdiction once acquired continues until the case concludes.
– Amnesty’s retroactive effect erases the crime.
### Historical Background:
– **Post-WWII Amnesty Proclamations**: Proclamation No. 8, 1946 aimed to offer amnesty to guerillas and others involved in wartime offenses against collaborators. Context rooted in reconciliation and the political landscape of post-war Philippines.
Leave a Reply