Understanding Amnesty: How the Patriarca Case Forgives Political Crimes in the Philippines

TLDR: The Supreme Court case of People v. Patriarca highlights the powerful effect of amnesty in the Philippines. When granted for politically motivated offenses, amnesty completely wipes out criminal liability as if the crime never happened. This case underscores that courts must recognize valid amnesty grants, effectively ending criminal prosecutions and freeing individuals from convictions related to rebellion and similar offenses.

[ G.R. No. 135457, September 29, 2000 ]

INTRODUCTION

Imagine facing a life sentence for a crime you committed decades ago, driven by political beliefs during a tumultuous era. This was the reality for Jose Patriarca, Jr., until the long arm of the law was stayed by an even more powerful legal principle: amnesty. In the Philippines, amnesty offers a path to reconciliation and forgiveness for those who engaged in politically motivated offenses. The Patriarca case vividly illustrates how amnesty, when granted, acts as a legal eraser, completely nullifying criminal liability. This decision isn’t just a legal victory for one individual; it’s a crucial affirmation of the Philippine government’s commitment to peace and reintegration, offering valuable lessons for anyone navigating the complex intersection of political dissent and criminal law.

This case arose from the conviction of Jose Patriarca, Jr. for murder, a crime he allegedly committed as part of his activities with the New People’s Army (NPA). The central legal question was whether a grant of amnesty, specifically Proclamation No. 724, could overturn a murder conviction when the crime was committed in furtherance of rebellion. The Supreme Court’s resounding answer in People v. Patriarca not only acquitted Patriarca but also reinforced the comprehensive and restorative power of amnesty in the Philippine legal system.

LEGAL CONTEXT: AMNESTY IN PHILIPPINE LAW

Amnesty, deeply rooted in legal tradition, is more than just a pardon; it’s a collective act of forgetting, a sovereign decision to consign certain past acts to oblivion for the greater good of national reconciliation. In the Philippine legal context, amnesty is a public act, typically proclaimed by the President with the concurrence of Congress. This public nature is a key distinction from pardon, which is a private act granted by the Chief Executive to an individual after conviction. As the Supreme Court emphasized, courts are obligated to take judicial notice of amnesty proclamations.

The Revised Penal Code, in Article 89, paragraph 3, explicitly states that criminal liability is extinguished completely by amnesty. This means that amnesty doesn’t just forgive the punishment; it eradicates the offense itself, placing the individual in the legal position they would have occupied had they never committed the crime. This retroactive effect is what makes amnesty such a potent tool for national healing, especially after periods of political unrest or rebellion.

The landmark case of People vs. Casido, cited in Patriarca, clearly differentiates pardon and amnesty:

“Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment… While amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.”

Proclamation No. 724, the specific amnesty proclamation relevant to the Patriarca case, extended amnesty to individuals who committed crimes in pursuit of their political beliefs up to June 1, 1995. This proclamation covered a wide range of offenses, including rebellion, insurrection, sedition, illegal possession of firearms related to rebellion, and violations of specific Articles of War. However, it explicitly excluded “crimes against chastity and other crimes for personal ends,” ensuring that amnesty remained focused on politically motivated actions.

CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE PATRIARCA, JR.

The narrative of People v. Patriarca unfolds in Sorsogon, where Jose Patriarca, Jr., allegedly known as “Ka Django,” faced murder charges for the death of Alfredo Arevalo. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of Nonito Malto, who recounted seeing Patriarca and armed companions with a hogtied man, followed by gunshots and the removal of a body. Elisa Arevalo, the victim’s mother, testified about her son’s abduction by the NPA and subsequent confirmation of his death at the hands of Patriarca.

Patriarca, while admitting to being an NPA member, denied involvement in the abduction and killing. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Patriarca of murder in Criminal Case No. 2773, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. However, he was acquitted in two other murder cases (Criminal Case Nos. 2665 and 2672) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. Patriarca appealed his conviction, arguing that the murder was committed in furtherance of rebellion.

Crucially, Patriarca applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 724. The National Amnesty Commission (NAC) favorably granted his application, acknowledging that his actions, including the “liquidation of Alfredo Arevalo,” were indeed politically motivated. The NAC resolution detailed Patriarca’s involvement with the NPA since 1977 and specifically listed the Arevalo killing as one of the acts covered by amnesty. This resolution was formally communicated to the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, took judicial notice of this amnesty grant. Citing legal precedents and the Revised Penal Code, the Court emphasized the obliterating effect of amnesty on criminal liability. The Court stated:

“Amnesty looks backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.”

Based on the amnesty grant, the Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s decision and acquitted Patriarca. The Court’s decision wasn’t just limited to the murder case for Alfredo Arevalo. It explicitly ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 2663 and 2664, also covered by the NAC resolution, and mandated Patriarca’s release from detention (unless held for other lawful reasons). This comprehensive action underscored the sweeping effect of amnesty, resolving multiple potential charges stemming from Patriarca’s politically motivated activities.

The procedural journey can be summarized as follows:

• 1987: Alfredo Arevalo killed; alleged crime occurs.
• 1990: Information for murder filed against Jose Patriarca, Jr.
• 1998: Regional Trial Court convicts Patriarca of murder.
• 1999: National Amnesty Commission grants Patriarca amnesty under Proclamation No. 724.
• 2000: Supreme Court reverses RTC decision and acquits Patriarca based on the amnesty grant.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT PATRIARCA MEANS FOR YOU

People v. Patriarca serves as a powerful reminder of the Philippine government’s commitment to reconciliation and the legal mechanism of amnesty. For individuals who may have engaged in politically motivated offenses, particularly during periods of insurgency or rebellion, this case offers a beacon of hope. It clarifies that amnesty is not merely a symbolic gesture but a legally binding act that effectively erases criminal liability.

This ruling has several key practical implications:

• Amnesty is a complete defense: A valid grant of amnesty is a full and complete defense to criminal charges covered by the amnesty proclamation. Courts are bound to recognize and uphold it.
• Judicial Notice: Courts must take judicial notice of amnesty proclamations and grants. This means that once proven, the court must accept the amnesty as a fact without further evidentiary requirements.
• Retroactive Effect: Amnesty operates retroactively, wiping out the offense from the record as if it never occurred. This includes overturning convictions and dismissing pending cases.
• Scope of Amnesty: The specific terms of the amnesty proclamation are crucial. Proclamation No. 724, for instance, covered a broad range of political offenses but excluded crimes for personal gain. Individuals seeking amnesty must ensure their actions fall within the proclamation’s scope.
• Application Process: While the case doesn’t detail the application process, it highlights the role of the National Amnesty Commission in evaluating and granting amnesty. Individuals seeking amnesty should follow the prescribed procedures and provide evidence to demonstrate that their offenses were politically motivated.

Key Lessons from People v. Patriarca:

• Understand Amnesty: Recognize amnesty as a distinct legal remedy that completely extinguishes criminal liability for political offenses.
• Check Proclamations: Review specific amnesty proclamations (like Proclamation No. 724) to determine coverage and eligibility.
• Seek Legal Counsel: If you believe you may be eligible for amnesty, consult with a lawyer to understand the process and strengthen your application.
• Document Political Motivation: Gather evidence to demonstrate that your actions were indeed politically motivated and connected to rebellion or similar offenses.
• Follow Procedure: Adhere strictly to the application procedures set by the National Amnesty Commission or relevant authorities.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) about Amnesty in the Philippines

Q1: What is the difference between amnesty and pardon?

A: Amnesty is a public act, usually proclaimed by the President with Congressional concurrence, and it forgives political offenses, often before or during prosecution. It wipes out the crime entirely. Pardon is a private act by the President, granted after conviction, and it forgives the punishment but does not erase the crime itself.

Q2: Who is eligible for amnesty in the Philippines?

A: Eligibility depends on the specific amnesty proclamation. Generally, it applies to individuals who have committed politically motivated offenses, such as rebellion, insurrection, or sedition, within a specified period. Proclamation No. 724, for example, covered offenses up to June 1, 1995.

Q3: Does amnesty cover all crimes?

A: No. Amnesty proclamations typically exclude certain crimes, such as crimes against chastity or crimes committed for personal gain. Amnesty is specifically targeted at political offenses.

Q4: How do I apply for amnesty?

A: The application process is usually outlined by the National Amnesty Commission or the issuing authority. It generally involves submitting an application and supporting documents demonstrating the political nature of the offense. Consulting with a lawyer is advisable.

Q5: What happens if amnesty is granted?

A: If amnesty is granted, criminal liability for the covered offenses is completely extinguished. This means pending cases are dismissed, convictions are overturned, and the individual is legally considered as never having committed the offense.

Q6: Is amnesty automatic?

A: No, amnesty is not automatic. Individuals must apply for amnesty and undergo a process of evaluation by the National Amnesty Commission or relevant bodies to determine eligibility.

Q7: Can amnesty be revoked?

A: Once validly granted and final, amnesty is generally irrevocable, especially after the lapse of the reconsideration period, as indicated in the Patriarca case.

Q8: What evidence is needed to prove political motivation for amnesty?

A: Evidence can include affiliation with political groups, involvement in political activities, the context of the offense within a broader political movement, and any documentation supporting the political nature of the actions.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and human rights law in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.