Uploads PDF 196 SP 159811 03012021
Uploads PDF 196 SP 159811 03012021
Court of Appeals
Manila
SIXTH DIVISION
DECISION
Bruselas, Jr., J.
The Antecedents
Section 2. Effects.
In his rejoinder, the petitioner asserted that the DOJ had the
burden of overcoming the validity of the Certificate of Amnesty.
The certification that his amnesty application could not be found
and the news article that he did not admit his guilt were not
sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity that attended the
issuance of the Certificate of Amnesty. He also attached the
affidavits executed by the concerned personnel who received and
processed his amnesty application and those of other military
officials who accompanied him and witnessed him file his
application.12
14 Id., at 246-265.
15 Id., at 266-277.
16 Id., at 320-671.
17 Id., at 672-676.
18 Id., at 90-95.
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 8
===============
Allegations of Grave Abuse
“I.
II.
III.
-AND-
IV.
19 Id., at 3-64.
20 Id., at 8-9.
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 9
===============
47 See, e.g., P.D. Nos. 206 and 872, Series of 1973; P.D. Nos. 1182 and 1429, Series of 1977;
Proclamations Nos. 10 and 10-A, Series of 1992; Proclamation Nos. 347 and 248, Series of 1994.
48 Specifically, in P.D. No. 497 - the provinces of North Cotabato, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat,
Maguindanao, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur,
Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi, and Palawan and the cities of Cotabato, General Santos, Iligan, Marawi,
Zamboanga, Pagadian, Basilan, Dipolog and Dapitan; in P.D. No. 1082 – the provinces of Tawi-
Tawi, Sulu, Basilan, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato,
North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte and Palawan; and
in the cities of Basilan, Zamboanga, Dapitan, Dipolog, Pagadian, Davao, General Santos,
Cotabato, Iligan, Marawi and Puerto Princesa.
49 See, e.g., United Nations Regulation No. 2001/10 on the establishment of a Commission for
Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, Section 32. Retrieved from:
https://peacekeeping.un.org/mission/past/etimor/untaetR/Reg10e.pdf
50 See, e.g., Proclamation No. 1377, Series of 2007 (“The grant of amnesty shall restore the grantee’s
civil and political rights lost or suspended by virtue of conviction for crime/s covered thereby.”).
51 See, e.g., Proclamation 208 of 01 June 1872 issued by then United States President Ulysses S.
Grant, for instance, did not remove all political disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment
to officers in the judicial, military, and naval service, heads of Departments, and foreign ministers,
among others. Retrieved from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-208-
suspension-prosecution-for-violations-the-office-holding-prohibition.
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 18
===============
and enter their own country.52
87 La Cantuta v. Peru, Judgment of November 29, 2006, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 162, para.
80(63) and 80(64), citing Judgment of October 16, 2001 of the Supreme Council of Military
Justice.
88 The Belfast Guidelines on Amnesty and Accountability prepared by the Ulster University's
Transitional Justice Institute, p. 54 Retrieved from:
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/BelfastGuidelines_TJI2014.pdf.pdf
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 32
===============
criminal proceedings or service of sentence shall be resumed.89
That there exists the power to revoke does not mean that
there is an unbridled authority to exercise the same. Under no
circumstance is the implied authority of the President, or of any
amnesty-granting body for that matter, to revoke an
individualized, conditional amnesty absolute. It must be
grounded only upon a failure to comply with the stated
conditions and upon no other.
A law does not run the risk of losing the entire remedial
scheme simply because it fails, through inadvertence or
108 H. Villarica Pawnshop v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. 228087, January 24, 2018.
109 Tiu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999.
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 43
===============
otherwise, to cover every evil that might conceivably have been
attacked. Legislation is not unconstitutional under the equal
protection clause merely because it is under-inclusive or not all-
embracing. Where the purpose can be attained in future
legislations or regulations, a regulation challenged under the
equal protection clause is not devoid of a rational predicate
simply because it happens to be incomplete. These cases are
referred to as a "step by step" process. 110 Thus, even if there be
other grantees who may have similarly breached the amnesty
conditions of Proclamation No. 75, their non-inclusion in
Proclamation No. 572 does not per se render the latter
proclamation unconstitutional. Proclamation No. 572 does not
preclude the revocation of other grantees' conditional amnesty at
some future time if it be found that they also breached or failed to
comply with the amnesty conditions.
110 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010.
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 44
===============
Whereas the RTC of Makati - Branch 148 took the time to
hear in full the evidence of both the DOJ and the petitioner
concerning the factual bases of Proclamation No. 572 before
resolving to deny DOJ's Omnibus Motion, the herein respondent
court did not duly hear and receive evidence on the Omnibus
Motion and Opposition thereto. The respondent court leaned
instead on its understanding of void judgments vis-a-vis the
doctrine of finality of judgments in resolving to grant the
Omnibus Motion, thus ordering the issuance of a warrant of arrest
and a hold departure order against the petitioner.
But like any other rule, the doctrine has exceptions, namely:
1) the correction of clerical errors; 2) the so-called nunc pro tunc
entries which cause no prejudice to any party; 3) void judgments;
and 4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.114
Moreover, in exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court has
allowed the alteration of final judgments or orders for legal
stability115 and to rectify serious injustice.116
The same fact patterns upon the same set of rules, when
evaluated, should generally and predictably elicit the same results
regardless of who conducts the evaluation or how many
evaluators there may be, but in the case of the petitioner, two
138 Specifically, former Marine Msgt. Dominador E. Rull, Jr. and former Cpl. Emmanuel C. Tirador.
Other witnesses for DOJ, include: LTC Thea Joan Andrade (Chief of the Discipline, Law and
Order Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel), Atty. Norman Daanoy (Chief,
DND Legal Affairs Office), Arlene De Rama Manjares (Chief of the DND Records Division),
Atty. Maria Rhodora Malabag-Peralta, and Mark Dalan Merueñas.
The TSNs and other records of the proceedings before RTC Makati Branch 148 on the Omnibus
Motion in the coup d'etat case were attached to the submissions of the parties herein.
CA-G.R. SP No. 159811
Decision
Page 58
===============
divergent outcomes came out. We are of the view that, had only
one approach been taken, one that allowed the reception of
evidence in full measure, common answers to common questions
of facts would have been elicited. Proper use of the rules of
evidence would have reflected the appropriate appreciation of the
admissibility, weight and sufficiency of the Certificate of Amnesty,
Certification, and Proclamation No. 572, amongst other pieces of
evidence.
To Summarize,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Original Signed
MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB
Associate Justice
Original Signed
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Original Signed
APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairman, Sixth Division