THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. IRINEO BONDOC (ALIAS DICK TRACY), DEFEDANT AND APPELLANT.

TORRES, J.:

Irineo Bondoc and about eleven others had conspired and resolved to kill
Mayor Victor Tizon of Capas, Tarlac and his escort of policemen, while the
former was conducting community assemblies in different places in his
municipality in the early part of 1946.

Bondoc and his co-accused learned that in the morning of January 19, 1946,
Mayor Tizon and his policemen were going to the sitio of Talimundoc,
Capas. At about 9 a.m., the mayor, the chief of police, one police sergeant and
five policemen, all armed and in uniform, were walking on the road to
Talimundoc, and when they reached a place covered on the left with thick cogon
grass, about one kilometer from Talimundoc, there was suddenly a volley of shots
fired from that place. The mayor and his party returned the fire, but in the
exchange of shots which lasted from ten to fifteen minutes, policeman RicardoQuizon and Candido Dayrit were killed, the first instantaneously, and the
latter, before reaching the municipal building.

Mayor Tizon, looking towards the place of the ambuscade, fired his revolver
and saw Irineo Bondoc, without hat and wearing a short-sleeved khaki shirt and
short khaki pants, with the group of ambuscaders firing at him. The mayor, upon
coming face to face with appellant, noticed that the latter lay down and, with
his carbine, fired several shots at him. Then, when the group of appellant
dispersed, the mayor saw Irineo Bondoc again as he was crossing a concrete
bridge over an irrigation canal. During the exchange of shots between the two
groups, the two policemen who were killed were standing almost behind the
mayor.

It appears that policeman Ricardo Quizon met instantaneous death, because a
bullet perforated the frontal bone and destroyed and splashed the brain
substance; while policeman Candido Dayrit died of profuse hemorrhage caused by
two bullet wounds penetrating the upper part of his right knee.

This case, No. 363 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, is before us by
an appeal entered by Irineo Bondoc from the judgment rendered by the lower
court; which found him guilty of tiro murders and sentenced him in each case to
reclusion perpetua, the total of which shall not, however, exceed forty
years in accordance with Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.

The facts stated at the beginning of this decision and which led to the
filing of the information for double murder against this appellant were
sufficiently proven by the prosecution, not only through the testimony of Mayor
Tizon and Dr. Sikat, but also by that given by two other witnesses. Francisco
Sanchez testified that he was the justice of the peace of Capas, Tarlac who
conducted the preliminary investigation in this case. He identified Exhibit A as
the same statement given before him by Irineo E. Bondoc on November 29, 1947.
Bondoc made a statement in the Pampango dialect which was translated by the
justice of the peace into the English language. The answers of the accused were,
according to the witness, given spontaneously and voluntarily without any
promise of reward or immunity, without any intimidation or force having been
used, in the presence of many witnesses. In said Exhibit “A” (page 1) Bondoc
admitted that he was “one of those who were criminally responsible for the
murder,” that he did it “in compliance with an order from the director Mr. Ruben
Velasco of Squadron 50 of the Hukbalahap.”

Another witness, Lamberto Baun, municipal policeman of Capas, testified that
he was one of the members of the party of Mayor Tizon on the morning of January
19, 1946, escorting said official who was going to Talimundoc to hold a
community assembly. Before the ambuscade, Irineo Bondoc was already known to the
witness who also was acquainted with other members of the attacking group, such
as Pederico Aquino and Atanasio Dayrit. Lamberto Baun described the attack; he
said that the two policemen who were killed in the encounter, Ricardo Quizon and
Candido Dayrit and another one were close behind Mayor Tizon when they were
shot.

The defense, by means of two witnesses, tried to establish an alibi for the
accused. Eustaquio Lunga took the stand for that purpose, but upon
cross-questioning by the prosecution he admitted his inability to reckon dates.
He could not give the date of the town fiesta of his hometown during the year
immediately preceding the date of the trial, which made his testimony on the
alleged presence of the appellant in his house in Tarlac, the capital of the
province, on a much earlier date, January 19, 1946, most unreliable and
unconvincing.

Another witness, Modesto Bondoc, gave testimony on his accidental meeting
with the wife of appellant, In the house of his parents in Tarlac on the eve of
the trial without knowing that he was going to testify, which clearly stamps his
testimony as an eleventh hour fabrication.

Considering that this Court has ruled time and again that a defense of alibi
which the accused tried to establish by such means must be looked upon with
suspicion, it is obvious that it cannot prevail against the explicit and
positive identification made of Irineo Bondoc by Mayor Tizon of Capas and
policeman Lamberto Baun who, without hesitation, while on the witness stand,
testified that they saw him with the group of ambuscaders firing his carbine at
the party of the mayor and his policemen. (U.S. vs. Olais, 36 Phil.
828.)

During the pendency of this appeal, counsel for appellant moved for the
dismissal of this case on the ground that Irineo Bondoc being a Hukbalahap, and
having committed the crimes charged against him in furtherance of the aims of
such dissident organization, is entitled to the benefits of Presidential
Proclamation Mo. 76 issued by the President of the Philippines on the 21st of
June 1948, which granted amnesty to the leaders and members of the Hukbalahap
and the PKM, “who have committed the crimes of rebellion, sedition, illegal
association, assault upon, resistance, and disobedience to persons in authority,
and/or illegal possession of firearms; Provided, however, That this
amnesty shall apply to those who shall have presented themselves with all their
firearms and ammunition to the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of
the Philippines within twenty days from the date this proclamation is concurred
in by the Congress.”

Counsel urges that Irineo Bondoc had made an application for registration
under said Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, which is certified to by the provincial
warden of Tarlac. But such motion for dismissal is opposed by the Solicitor
General on the ground that the petitioner did not comply (a) with the
provision of Circular No. 27(a) of the Secretary of Justice, dated July
21, 1948, outlining the procedure to be followed by applicants for amnesty who
are presently in jail, either as detention or convicted prisoners; and
(b) with the provisions of Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 requiring the
surrender of firearms and ammunition.

Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, intended for crimes committed after the
liberation by members of the Hukbalahap and PKM who were no longer engaged in
the resistance against the Japanese forces, but against the constituted
government of the Republic of the Philippines, was issued by the President to
bring about “the return of these dissident and recalcitrant elements of our
population to their homes and the resumption by them of their lawful pursuits or
occupations as loyal and law-abiding citizens will accelerate the rehabilitation
of this war-devastated country, restore peace and order, and secure the welfare
and happiness of their communities.

For the enforcement of the provisions of said Proclamation No. 76, Circular
No. 27 was issued by the Secretary of Justice prescribing the conditions under
which persons applying for the benefits of such proclamation could have the
benefits thereof extended to them. According to paragraph 1 of said circular, it
is necessary that members of the Hukbalahap and PKM organizations should present
themselves, with all their arms and ammunition to the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines, within twenty days from June 25, 1943, when the
said proclamation was concurred in by the Congress. Paragraph 2 requires that a
person claiming the benefit of the amnesty, must, on or before July 15, 1948
present himself together with all his arms and ammunition to an officer
of the law who shall issue to him a certificate in the form prescribed
therein.

The record fails to show that this appellant has complied with such
requirement as to entitle him to the benefits of the .Amnesty Proclamation No.
76, particularly the fundamental requisite mentioned in said circular re the
surrender of firearms and ammunition. Considering that the rebellious attitude
of those dissident organizations, the Hukbalahap and PKM and their members, is
predicated on the fact that they have in their possession firearms so that
without them they cannot maintain their defiant attitude against the government,
We believe that this appellant has failed to comply with such requirement and
therefore his motion to dismiss lacks merit (People vs. Santos, G.R.
No. L-1320 and 1821, promulgated on June 27, 1949, Volume 15, No. 1, Lawyers
Journal, page 2l).

It is quite evident that appellant, who confessed his active participation in
the ambuscade by firing several shots at the mayor and his escort of policemen,
did not take the stand, and simply relied on his two above mentioned witnesses
in an unsuccessful attempt to establish an alibi, is guilty of the two murders
charged in the information. And although in Our opinion, in the light of the
facts clearly disclosed by the evidence, this appellant and his confederates
have also committed the crimes of (a) assault upon a person in
authority—the mayor of Gapas who was then engaged in the performance of his
duties—and (b) assault upon agents of an authority—the municipal
policemen who were also engaged in the performance of their duties—yet such
omission or oversight by the prosecution will not bar us from finding, as We do
hereby find, Irineo Bondoc alias Dick Tracy guilty of the murder of
each of the two policemen who lost their lives in that ambuscade.

In view of all the foregoing, and finding no error committed by the judge
a quo in the instant case, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs.

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

Tuason, J., concurs in the result.

Moran, C. J., Mr. Justice Paras voted for the affirmance of the judgment appealed from,
but on account of his being on leave at the time of the promulgation of this
opinion, his signature does not appear herein.