MADID MACAGA-AN, BATO-ALI UMPAT, HADJI DISAMBURUN MACAPODI, HADJI KIRAM BURUAN, HADJI DIMASINDIL PANDAPATAN, AMER MANALUDNONG, HADJI AMER AMAI KUROT, HADJI MANGOTIM MOLAN, HADJI…

The 22 petitioners include municipal treasurers of various municipalities of Lanao del Norte
and Lanao del Sur, and the
Officer-in-Charge of the Provincial Treasurer’s Office of Lanao del Sur, as
well as the Provincial
Auditor and the Assistant
Provincial Auditor of Lanao del Sur. 
Petitioners were charged and convicted in 33 cases for estafa through
falsification of public and commercial documents (Article 315, in relation to
Article 171, Revised Penal Code) in a decision of the Sandiganbayan promulgated
on 15 July 1981.  The total amount of
Government funds (treasury warrants) involved was somewhat over P2.7 million.

On 14 March 1986, petitioners moved “to close their cases
and release [their] bond[s]” on the ground that they had been given
amnesty by former President F. E. Marcos on 28 January 1986.  The Sandiganbayan required them to submit
originals or authenticated copies of their amnesty papers, which petitioners
were unable to produce.  Thereupon, the
Sandiganbayan denied petitioners’ motion. 
In a motion
for reconsideration, the accused sought to prove by secondary evidence their
claim that they had been granted amnesty by former President Marcos. 
The Tanodbayan objected to allowing
the accused to adduce secondary evidence of grant(s) of amnesty to the accused.  In an extended resolution dated 27 January
1987, the respondent Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration.

The petitioners now seek certiorari
to review and set aside the
extended resolution of the Sandiganbayan, claiming that the respondent court committed reversible error, firstly, in holding that Presidential
Decree No. 1082, the applicable amnesty statue according to petitioners, did
not apply to them; and secondly, in not allowing them to present secondary
evidence of the amnesty allegedly granted by the former President to the
petitioners.

The petitioners state that they applied for amnesty through the
3rd and 11th Amnesty Commission (sic) of Lanao del Sur and Marawi City and that
on 2 February 1985, they were granted conditional amnesty by the said
Commission, subject to the approval or final action of the President of the
Philippines pursuant to P.D. No. 1082, dated 2 February 1977.  The Amnesty Commission, the petitioners
continue, endorsed the amnesty applications of the petitioners to the
President, recommending approval thereof or grant of executive clemency to the
petitioners.  The petitioners’ amnesty
applications are said to have been submitted to the Office of the President by
the then Presidential Assistant Victor Nituda. 
Former Governor Mohammed Ali Dimaporo, the petitioners further state,
made written representations dated 27 January 1986 with former President Marcos
concerning the petitioners’ applications during a political rally of the Kilusang
Bagong Lipunan on 22 January 1986.  Mr.
Marcos apparently wrote on the upper righthand corner of former Governor Dimaporo’s
letter the following: 
“Approved” and signed the same with a partly illegible
date.  The petitioners state, finally,
that the original copies of the amnesty papers were in the possession of then
Presidential Adviser Joaquin Venus and were lost or destroyed at Malacañang
“during the February 1986 bloodless military revolution” and could
not now be located.

The respondent
Sandiganbayan declined to allow the petitioners to submit secondary evidence of
the claimed applications for and grant of amnesty, upon the ground that even if the petitioners were to
succeed in proving or authenticating the alleged amnesty papers through secondary evidence,
petitioners would nonetheless not be entitled to discharge from the convictions
rendered by that court.  The respondent
court held that the benefits of amnesty were never available to the petitioners
under P.D. No. 1182.

We agree with the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No.
1182 as amended by P.D. No. 1429, dated 10 June 1978, provides, in relevant
portion, as follows:

“SECTION 1.  Proclamation
of Amnesty. – Amnesty is hereby decreed in favor of all persons who have been arrested and/or
charged, or although not arrested
and/or charged may have committed acts which make them liable for, violation
of the provisions of Republic Act No. 1700, as amended by Presidential Decree no. 885, and those who have been arrested for, and/or charged or
chargeable with crimes against public order as defined and penalized under Revised Penal Code, including
those crimes and offenses which may have been committed by said persons in furtherance
thereof.

SEC. 2.  Persons
Disqualified. – The following
persons are disqualified from amnesty under this Decree:

(a) Those who have
promoted, maintained or headed a rebellion or insurrection or who, while
holding public office or employment, took part therein, engaged in war
against the forces of the Government, destroyed property or committed serious
violence, exacted contributions or diverted public funds from the lawful
purpose for which they had been appropriated; provided, that persons who have been arrested and/or charged with
having merely participated or executed the commands of others in a rebellion
may be granted amnesty.

(b) Those who have
been arrested and/or charged with murder, homicide, serious physical injuries,
crimes against chastity, robbery, piracy, arson, hijacking, violations of the
Firearms and Explosives Law, and assault upon and resistance and disobedience
to persons in authority and their agents, except if such crime or offense was
committed in furtherance of subversion or crimes against public order as a mere participant/affiliate/member.

x        x          x

SEC. 4.  Conditions for the grant of amnesty. – Any person applying for amnesty
pursuant to this Decree must satisfy the following requirements:

a.  If under arrest or charged as of the date of this decree, he
must submit his application not
later than September 30, 1978
in the prescribed form hereto attached as Annex A;

If not under arrest, he
must submit such application within six months after his arrest or
surrender;

b.  He must renew his oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and swear or affirm to support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines; and

c. He must surrender
whatever unlicensed firearms and/or explosives and ammunition he may have in
his possession.” (Underscoring supplied)

As
pointed out by the Sandiganbayan,
under the very legislation
authorizing the amnesty,

“(a)  The crimes to be amnestied must have been for
violations of subversion laws or those defined and proscribed under
crimes against public order under the Revised Penal Code; and

 (b)  
The applications for amnesty must have been filed not later than
September 30, 1978 or six months
after the arrest or surrender of the applicant for amnesty” (Underscoring
supplied).

In the instant case, the
petitioners were charged with and convicted of defrauding the Republic by
diverting public funds from their intended public uses to private and personal use and gain, under Article
315 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.  Article 315 is found in Title 10, Chapter 6,
of that Code which defines Crimes against
Property.  The estafa was committed
through the falsification of documents
described in Article 171, entitled “Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclessiastical Minister” found in Title 4, entitled
Crimes Against Public Interest, of the Revised Penal Code.  Clearly, petitioners fall under Section 2 (a) as persons expressly
disqualified from amnesty under P.D. 1182, as amended.  Petitioners’ applications for amnesty were
also filed way beyond the time limit established under P.D. 1182, as amended,
since petitioners were convicted by the Sandiganbayan on 15 July 1981; their
applications for amnesty were filed only in 1984.

Petitioners apparently
claim that their applications for amnesty were filed under Presidential Decree
No. 1082 dated 2 February 1977 and not under Presidential Decree No. 1182.  The photocopied
documents annexed to the Petition (Annexes “C”, “D”,
“E”, “F” and “G”) captioned:  “Subject:  Conditional
Amnesty” and addressed to some of the petitioners, appear to have been issued under or pursuant to
P.D. No. 1082 “and the instructions of the Secretary of National Defense“.  P.D. No. 1082 provides in relevant part:

“SECTION 1.  Proclamation
of Amnesty. – Subject to the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 hereof, an
amnesty is hereby decreed and proclaimed in the province of Tawi-Tawi, Sulu,
Basilan, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato,
North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte and Palawan; and in the cities of
Basilan, Zamboanga, Dapitan Diplog, Pagadian, Davao, General Santos, Cotabato,
Iligan, Marawi and Puerto Princesa, in favor of all the leaders, members,
supporters, and symphatizers of the Moro National Liberation Front and the Bangsa
Moro Army and other anti-government groups with similar motivations and
aims, who, prior to the effectivity of this Decree, 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 including,
but not limited to:

a.  Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
punishable under Section 878 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, or Presidential Decree
No. 9, dated October 2, 1972;

b.   Illegal possession of bladed weapons or
explosives punishable under Presidential Decree No. 9 dated October 2, 1972;

c.   Violation of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as follows:

(1)   Interruption of
religious worship (Article 132);

(2)   Offending the religious
feelings (Article 133);

(3)   Rebellion or
insurrection (Article 134, in relation to Article 135, as amended);

(4)   Conspiracy and proposal
to commit rebellion (Article 136, as amended);

(5)   Inciting to rebellion
or insurrection (Article 138, as amended);

(6)   Sedition (Article 139
in relation to Article 140, as amended);

(7)   Conspiracy to commit
sedition (Article 141);

(8)   Illegal assemblies
(Article 146, as amended);

(9)   Illegal associations
(Article 147, as amended);

(10) Direct assaults (Article 148);

(11) Indirect assaults (Article 149);

(12) Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents
of such persons (Article 151);

(13) Tumults and other disturbance of public order (Article 153);
and

(14) Alarm and scandals (Article 155);

except those who have committed
crimes against chastity, murder, and kidnapping as defined in the Revised Penal Code
as amended; those who have committed violations of Republic Act 6035 (Aircraft
Anti-Hijacking Law) and those who have committed violation of PD 532 dated August 8, 1974 (Anti-Piracy
and Anti-Highway Robbery); provided that any person so excepted above
may be granted amnesty if recommended and the merits of his case
so warrant.

Provided, further, that the persons herein mentioned above who may
have committed any of the above-stated crimes or offenses in furtherance of
their resistance to the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines outside of the provinces and cities
herein mentioned may also be granted amnesty by the President in accordance
herewith.

SEC. 2.  Conditions for
the grant of amnesty. – Any person applying for amnesty pursuant to this
Decree must satisfy the following requirements and must submit his application within ninety days from the effectivity
of this Decree, to be entitled to the amnesty herein proclaimed:

a.  He must take an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and swear or affirm to support and defend the
Constitution of the Philippines;

b.  He must surrender whatever firearm and/or explosives
and ammunition he may have in his possession.” (Underscoring supplied).

We note, at the outset,
that P.D. No. 1182 may well have repealed P.D. No. 1082.  P.D. No. 1182, the later statute, covers
the same subject matter that P.D. No.
1082 covered.  P.D. 1182 makes no
mention of the MNLF nor of the Bangsa Moro Army but rather relates to all
groups fighting the government of the Republic. 
P.D. No. 1182, unlike P.D. 1082, covers the entire territory of the
Republic of the Philippines; in contrast, P.D. 1082 covers only some of the provinces in Mindanao and
Sulu and Tawi-Tawi and some of the cities there located.  In addition, P.D. 1182 as amended by P.D. No. 1429 included
a repealing clause (Section 10, Rescission [sic] Clause) which “rescinded
(sic) and/or modified” all laws, decrees, instructions, rules and
regulations inconsistent with that decree. 
It is, happily, not necessary to make an explicit determination on this
point.  We can assume, merely for
purposes of analysis, that P.D. No. 1082 continued to subsist notwithstanding
the promulgation of P.D. No. 1182, as amended.  P.D. No. 1082 is scarcely a model of legislative draftsmanship.  The proviso in the exception clause
immediately following subparagraph no. 14, is particularly opaque.  It, however, appears sufficiently clear that
the offenses for which amnesty may be granted under the provisions of P.D. 1082 are acts penalized under
existing law which were done in furtherance or in the course of resistance
to the duly constituted authorities of the Republic by members and
supporters of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Bangsa Moro
Army and other “anti-government groups with similar motivations and
aims”.  The “resistance to the
duly constituted authorities of the Republic” referred to herein 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“.  In the present case, the Sandiganbayan
said:

“Nowhere has it been indicated in the records nor has it been
demonstrated now that the insurgents herein have been convicted of acts
constituting crimes against public order or acts committed in connection with
violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 1700 as amended by P.D. No. 885.”

We
have examined the decision,
dated 21 December 1981, by the First Division
of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 715, 716, 717, 908, 909 and 910, contained
in the record before this Court in G.R. Nos. 60228-31 entitled “Dimalna
Limgas and Macalanto Marcaban vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.”^[1] We have also examined the decision dated 2
July 1981 also of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, in Criminal Cases Nos. 502
through 531 contained in the record before this Court in G.R. Nos. 58928-57
entitled “Andrada Ditucalan, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.”^[2] There is nothing in these two decisions 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 (albeit carefully plotted
and systematically carried out by numerous accused) without any political
complexion and consisting simply of diversion of public funds to
private profit.

The instant case
therefore presents the issue of what effect, if any, may be given to supposed
acts of the former President which were in conflict with or in violation of
decrees issued by that same former President. 
So viewed, this Court has no alternative save to declare that the
supposed acts of the former President done in 1985 in clear conflict with the
restrictions embodied in the very decrees promulgated by that same former
President, cannot be given any legal effect. 
It may be supposed that the former President could have validly amended
Presidential Decrees Nos. 1082 and 1182 so as to wipe away the restrictions and
limitations in fact found in those decrees. 
But the former President did not so amend his own decrees and he
must be held to the terms and conditions that he himself had promulgated in the exercise of legislative power.

It may be — we do not
completely discount the possibility
— that the former President did in fact act in contravention of the decrees here involved by granting the amnesty claimed by petitioners, and that by such acts, he may
indeed have aroused expectations (however unjustified under the terms of
existing law) in the minds of the petitioners. 
If such be the case, then the appropriate recourse of the petitioners is
not to this Court, nor to any other court, but rather to the Executive Department
of the government.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.  The Resolution dated 27 January 1987 of the
respondent Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED.  No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
The accused were:  Macalanto Marcaban,
Apon Bilinugun, Dimalna Limgas and Mario Lebron (who was still at large).

^[2]
The accused
were:  Apon Dilinogon, Talib Marandacan, Dima Borongawan, Abdul Dimacuta, Hadji
Macabebe Pangcoga, Tumendug Colayo,
Hadji Kiram Buruan, Hadji Papel Angad, Hadji Dimasendil Pandapatan, Ismael
Romato, Amer Manalundong, Quirino Manangkiran, Dimnatang Mamari, Hadji Paito Umpara, Usman Dalidig, Mangorangca
Dimacaling, Sultan Bagul Galman, Hadji Amir Amai Kurut, Diampuan Gubat, Odal Guindolongan, Hadji Mangotin Molan, Hadji Disamburun Macapodi, Andrada
Ditucalan, Madid Macagaan, and Batu Ali Umpat.