People v. Nanadiego
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 23, 1954, a complaint for kidnapping with murder was filed against Gaudencio Vera, et al., including Tagumpay A. Nanadiego (Nanadiego). An information was filed on February 23, 1955, charging the accused with the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder. On May 11, 1955, the case was referred to the Amnesty Commission. On August 12, 1955, the case was referred to the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission. After trial, the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission, on June 12, 1956, remanded the case to the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction, as no defendants admitted guilt, a prerequisite for amnesty. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-18184 on January 31, 1963, which ruled that an admission of guilt is necessary for amnesty. Procedural History: On January 11, 1965, Nanadiego filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Information, asserting that his criminal liability was extinguished by amnesty granted by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Amnesty Commission on July 7, 1959, under Proclamation No. 8, s. 1946. The Special Prosecutor opposed this but admitted that the AFP Amnesty Commission cleared Nanadiego. The trial court dismissed the case against Nanadiego on January 23, 1965, finding that the crime charged was the same one for which amnesty was granted, and that trying him again would constitute double jeopardy. The prosecution appealed this dismissal. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the dismissal order, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that Nanadiego was validly granted amnesty, that trying him would constitute double jeopardy, and in dismissing the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case against defendant-appellee Tagumpay A. Nanadiego based on the amnesty grant and concurrent jurisdiction of amnesty commissions. Whether the trial court erred in finding that defendant-appellee was validly granted amnesty on July 7, 1959, by the Armed Forces Commission, thus extinguishing his criminal liability. Whether trying the defendant-appellee under the information would constitute double jeopardy, considering the prior motion to dismiss by the prosecution and the amnesty granted.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Order of the trial court dated January 23, 1965, dismissing the case against appellee Tagumpay A. Nanadiego with cost de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the amnesty grant and concurrent jurisdiction: The Court held that both the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission and the AFP Amnesty Commission derived authority from Proclamation No. 8, s. 1946, thus having concurrent jurisdiction. However, Nanadiego applied for amnesty with the AFP Amnesty Commission on July 26, 1954, before the case was referred to the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission on August 12, 1955. Therefore, the AFP Amnesty Commission properly acquired jurisdiction first concerning Nanadiego. The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the others, and jurisdiction once acquired is not lost. The Court noted that Nanadiego did not participate in the proceedings before the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission. On the extinguishment of criminal liability by amnesty: The Court affirmed that on July 7, 1959, Nanadiego's criminal liability was completely extinguished by the amnesty granted by the AFP Amnesty Commission. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that amnesty looks backward and abolishes the offense, making the released person stand as if no offense was committed. Amnesty is a public act that courts must take judicial notice of, and its benefits cannot be waived as it is of public interest. The Court emphasized that the person granted amnesty is not only regarded as innocent but as a patriot or hero, not to be punished as a criminal. On the dismissal of the case and double jeopardy: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing the case based on the AFP Amnesty Commission's resolution granting amnesty. The Court cited Section 2(f), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a motion to quash may be filed when the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, and Article 89(3) of the Revised Penal Code, which states that amnesty totally extinguishes criminal liability. The Court further noted that the prosecution itself, through the Special Prosecutor, had filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 1967, citing insufficiency of evidence. Therefore, remanding the case for further proceedings at that late hour, when the prosecution admitted lack of evidence, would be a useless ritual and would not serve the ends of justice, especially since amnesty had already been granted.
Main Doctrine
Amnesty, which looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, completely extinguishes criminal liability and all its effects. Once established by evidence, the benefit of amnesty cannot be waived as it is of public interest.