People v. Guillermo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of December 15, 1944, in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, appellant Antonio Guillermo, alias Silver, identified as a "commanding officer" of a guerrilla group, beheaded seven citizens whose hands were tied behind their backs. The victims were Dominador Ballesteros, Donato Luis, Eusebio Luis, Julian Ventura, Esteban Andres, Santiago Gerardo, and Alfredo Gerrada. The massacre was motivated by suspicion that the victims were followers of a rival guerrilla leader, Captain Bueno, against whom appellant's group was engaged in a war of extermination. Captain Bueno himself was reportedly killed shortly thereafter. Procedural History: The trial court found the appellant guilty of seven murders qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each murder and to indemnify the heirs of each deceased in the sum of P2,000. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision, raising issues regarding his identity as the executioner and his entitlement to benefits under Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is the perpetrator of the seven murders. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefits of Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications regarding the indemnity, raising it to P6,000 each, and clarifying that the aggregate penalties shall not exceed 40 years. The Court found the appellant guilty of seven murders qualified by treachery.
Ratio Decidendi
On the identity of the perpetrator: The Court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution, Tomasa Ballesteros and Domingo Luis, to be convincing beyond reasonable doubt. These witnesses positively identified the appellant as the one who wore a beard and mustache on the night in question and beheaded the victims. The defense's claim that Lt. Alejandro Bumatnong alias Sagad was the perpetrator was rejected because it was convenient to implicate a deceased person who could not defend himself. Furthermore, the common-law wife of Bumatnong testified that he never had a beard or mustache. The Court also noted that the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the victims, had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant, whereas the defense witnesses were strangers to the victims and less interested in seeing the guilty punished. The minor contradictions pointed out by the defense did not detract from the veracity of the prosecution's testimony. On entitlement to amnesty: The Court ruled that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits of Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8. Firstly, the appellant did not invoke the amnesty before the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission nor plead it as a defense before the trial court; his defense was an absolute denial. The Court emphasized that amnesty must be pleaded and proven, and it is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance, which requires admitting the commission of the crime but disclaiming liability due to intervening facts. The appellant's inconsistent position of denying the crime while simultaneously claiming amnesty for it was untenable. Secondly, the Court found that the massacre was committed not in furtherance of the resistance movement but in the course of a fratricidal strife between rival guerrilla units, which was an act to hinder, not further, the resistance against the Japanese enemy. Therefore, the amnesty proclamation was not applicable to the circumstances of the case.
Main Doctrine
Amnesty must be pleaded and proven as a defense, and cannot be invoked by an accused who denies commission of the crime. Furthermore, acts committed during fratricidal strife between rival guerrilla units, not in furtherance of resistance against the enemy, do not fall within the scope of amnesty for resistance movements.