THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE JUDGES, CEFERINO DELOS SANTOS,VICENTE SANTIAGO, PATRICIO CENIZA, ZOILO HILARIO, BERNABE DE AQUINO AND LUIS O…

The herein respondent Julio Acosta was prosecuted in five cases
for murder and in two cases for murder with arson. In due time he filed with the
Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission (for the provinces of Ilocos Norte, Ilocos
Sur, Abraand La Union), consisting of respondent Judges Ceferino delos Santos,
Vicente Santiago and Patricio Ceniza, a petition for amnesty under Proclamation
No. 8 of the President of the Philippines dated September 7, 1946. After
hearing, the Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission rendered a decision, dated June
9, 1947, and actually received by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Norte on November 12, 1947, sustaining the petition for amnesty and
accordingly ordering the release of respondent Acosta. The herein petitioner,
the Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte, in his present special civil action for
certiorari and mandamus, assails the validity of the decision, on the grounds
(1) that it was rendered when respondent Judges Santos, Santiago and Ceniza had
ceased to be members of the Commission, it being alleged that on June 5, 1947,
the Secretary of Justice appointed new members for the Second Guerrilla Amnesty
Commission; (2) that the decision took legal effect only on November 12, 1947,
when it was received in the office of the clerk of Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Norte, on which date respondent Judges Santos, Santiago and Ceniza were
no longer members of the Commission; and (3) that the Commission was without
jurisdiction to act on the application for amnesty of respondent Acosta because
he did not admit the commission of the offenses charged against him. None of
these grounds is tenable.

As there is absolutely no showing that respondent Judges
Santos, Santiago and Ceniza knew, when they rendered their decision on June 9,
1947, that they had been replaced by other members in the Second Guerrilla
Amnesty Commission—as a matter of fact, the petitioner admits that the new
members held sessions in Laoag only in August, 1947, they may at least be
considered as de facto members of said Commission on June 9, 1947. The
validity of the decision cannot be affected by the fact that it was received in
the clerk’s office on November 12, 1947, because the Commission, unlike a
regular and permanent Court of First Instance, does not technically have its own
clerk of court with whom its judgments should be filed as required in section 1
of Rule of Court 35. Moreover, we can well treat the letter of the
Undersecretary of Justice to respondent Judge Ceferino de los Santos, dated July
31, 1947, as sufficient authority for him and respondent Judges Santiago and
Ceniza “to act on the cases submitted to the Commission.” It is noteworthy that
the letter expressly referred to the “Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission,
formerly composed of Judges Simeon Ramos, Ceferino de los Santos, Patricio
Ceniza and Vicente Santiago.”

In order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty
Proclamation of September 7, 1946, it is not necessary that he should, as a
condition precedent or sine qua non, admit having committed the
criminal act or offense with which he is charged, and allege the amnesty as a
defense. (Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil., 642.)

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is hereby
dismissed without costs. So ordered.

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

Tuason, J., I concur in the result.