ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2502   December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 77

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2502. December 1, 1949.]

    THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, Petitioner, v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, VICENTE SANTIAGO, PATRICIO CENIZA, ZOILO HILARIO, BERNABE DE AQUINO and LUIS ORTEGA, in their capacities as members of the Second Guerilla Amnesty Commission, and JULIO ACOSTA, Respondents.

    The Provincial Fiscal in his own behalf.

    The respondent Judges, with other respondents in their own behalf.

    SYLLABUS


    1. AMNESTY; GUERRILLA COMMISSION; VALIDITY OF DECISION RENDERED AFTER APPOINTMENT OF NEW MEMBERS THEREOF. — The validity of the decision of the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission rendered after the appointment of new members without their knowledge or information that they had been replaced by the Second Commission cannot be assailed, because they may at least be considered as de facto members thereof when they promulgated said decision; and. likewise, its validity cannot be affected by the fact that said decision was only received by the clerk’s office when the Second Commission had already convened 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 by law.

    2. ID.; APPLICANT FOR GUERRILA AMNESTY NEED NOT ADMIT CRIMINAL ACT AS A CONDITION "SINE QUA NON." — 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 v. Fernandez, 82 Phil., 642.)


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    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, Abra and La Union), consisting of respondent Judges Ceferino de los 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

    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 v. 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.:


    In concur in the result.

    G.R. No. L-2502   December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 77


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED