BARRIOQUINTO V FERNANDEZDate: 1949Facts: Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with the crime of murder. Barrioquinto was not arrested and only Jimenez was sentenced to life imprisonment. Before the period for appeal expired, Jimenez became aware of Proclamation No. 8, dated Sept. 7, 1946, which grants amnesty in favor of persons charged with an act penalized by the RPC in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy committed from Dec. 8, 1941 to the date when the area where the crime was committed was liberated. Jimenez and Barrioquinto, who was already apprehended, decided to submit their case to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission presided by herein respondents. However, Commissioner Fernandez of the 14thAmnesty Commission refused to process the amnesty request of the two accused because the two refused to admit to the crime as charged. Jimenez & Barrioquinto in fact said that a certain Tolentino was the one who committed the crime being charged to them.Issue: WON the amnesty under Proclamation No. 8 applies to petitioners who pleaded not guilty?Held: YESAmnesty must be distinguished from pardonAMNESTYPARDON

Public act which the court shall take judicial noticeGranted by the Chief Executive and must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned

Granted to classes of persons/communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after convictionGranted after conviction

Looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which the person is chargedThe person released by an amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offenseLooks forward and relieved the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted but does not restore rights/relieve the culprit from payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by sentence

It is not mandatory for the person to admit the offense in order for him/her to be entitled to the benefits of such amnesty. In order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation, it is not necessary that he should, as a condition precedent orsine qua non, admit having committed the criminal act or offense with which he is charged, and allege the amnesty as a defense; It is sufficient that the evidence, either of the complainant or the accused, shows that the offense committed comes within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation. Hence, it is not correct to say that invocation of the benefits of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance. Although the accused does not confess the imputation against him, he may be declared by the courts or the Amnesty Commissions entitled to the benefits of the amnesty. For, whether or not he admits or confesses having committed the offense with which he is charged, the Commissions should, if necessary or requested by the interested party, conduct summary hearing of the witnesses both for the complainants and the accused, on whether he has committed the offense in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy, or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy, and decide whether he is entitled to the benefits of amnesty and to be regarded as a patriot or hero who have rendered invaluable services to the nation, or not, in accordance with the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation. Since the Amnesty Proclamation is a public act, the courts as well as the Amnesty Commissions created thereby should take notice of the terms of said Proclamation and apply the benefits granted therein to cases coming within their province or jurisdiction, whether pleaded or claimed by the person charged with such offenses or not, if the evidence presented shows that the accused is entitled to said benefits Even if the petitioners state that their motive for killing was to act against enemies or the allies of the enemies, the Court cannot ascertain the truthfulness of such statement, which would render it useless If people are made to admit an offense before it is submitted to the Amnesty Commission, only a few would be encouraged to avail of the amnesty Even if as Barrioquinto alleges that it was Agapito Hipolito who killed the victim, they are still entitled to the benefits of amnesty because they were members of the same group of guerrilleros who killed the victim in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy/against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy