SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 952  January 23, 1903

THE UNITED STATES,Complainant-Appellee, vs. PRAXIDIO PE�OSO,Defendant-Appellant.

Francisco Dominguez, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

In the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines on the 17th day of January, 1901, the defendant was convicted of the crime of sedition defined in article 8 of Act No. 292. He appealed.chanrobles virtual law library

In his brief, filed in this court on November 29, 1902, he asked that he be acquitted, but if the court was of the opinion that this could not be done, then he asked that he be included in the amnesty of July 4, 1902.chanrobles virtual law library

Afterwards, and on January 8, 1903, he joined with the Solicitor-General in a petition to the court that he be declared entitled to the benefit of said amnesty.chanrobles virtual law library

We are justified, under these circumstances, in not passing upon the merits of the case. (The United States vs. Santillana, decided November 10, 1902.)chanrobles virtual law library

The offense is clearly included in the amnesty proclamation of July 4, 1902. The acts charged were committed in the month of December, 1901. If proved, they constituted an offense under Act No. 292, section 8 of the Commission. All offenses included in that Act are covered by the amnesty. (The United States vs. Abad, decided October 22, 1902.) It is certainly clear that offenses included in section 8 of the Act are so covered.chanrobles virtual law library

It is therefore declared that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of the amnesty, and upon his filing in this court the required oath the case shall be dismissed and remanded to the court below with direction that defendant be discharged. So ordered.chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.