Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 644 views

    Digest Tolentino v. Catoy

    Uploaded by

    James
    - The petitioner was found guilty of illegal assembly as a member of HUKBALAHAP and was serving his sentence when the President issued Proclamation 76 granting amnesty to leaders and members of HUKBALAHAP and PKM organizations. - The petitioner petitioned for his release under the amnesty but his petition was not acted upon. The lower court found he was covered by the amnesty but did not grant the writ because he failed to follow procedures in the implementing circulars. - The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to the amnesty even though he was already imprisoned and did not surrender firearms as stated in the proclamation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Tolentino v. Catoy

    Uploaded by

    James
    644 views2 pages
    - The petitioner was found guilty of illegal assembly as a member of HUKBALAHAP and was serving his sentence when the President issued Proclamation 76 granting amnesty to leaders and members of HUKBALAHAP and PKM organizations. - The petitioner petitioned for his release under the amnesty but his petition was not acted upon. The lower court found he was covered by the amnesty but did not grant the writ because he failed to follow procedures in the implementing circulars. - The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to the amnesty even though he was already imprisoned and did not surrender firearms as stated in the proclamation.

    Original Description:

    Digest Tolentino v. Catoy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The petitioner was found guilty of illegal assembly as a member of HUKBALAHAP and was serving his sentence when the President issued Proclamation 76 granting amnesty to leaders and members of HUKBALAHAP and PKM organizations. - The petitioner petitioned for his release under the amnesty but his petition was not acted upon. The lower court found he was covered by the amnesty but did not grant the writ because he failed to follow procedures in the implementing circulars. - The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to the amnesty even though he was already imprisoned and did not surrender firearms as stated in the proclamation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    644 views2 pages

    Digest Tolentino v. Catoy

    Uploaded by

    James
    - The petitioner was found guilty of illegal assembly as a member of HUKBALAHAP and was serving his sentence when the President issued Proclamation 76 granting amnesty to leaders and members of HUKBALAHAP and PKM organizations. - The petitioner petitioned for his release under the amnesty but his petition was not acted upon. The lower court found he was covered by the amnesty but did not grant the writ because he failed to follow procedures in the implementing circulars. - The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to the amnesty even though he was already imprisoned and did not surrender firearms as stated in the proclamation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tolentino v.

    Catoy
    Facts:
    Petitioner was a member of the HUKBALAHAP, and was found guilty by the court of first
    instance of Batangas of Illegal Assembly held in furtherance of the Hukbalahap designs. Said
    decision was promulgated on May 11, 1948. On June 21, the President issued Proclamation No.
    76 granting amnesty under certain conditions to leaders and members of the Hukbalahap and
    the PKM organizations. On July 16, within the 20-day period for surrender imposed as a
    condition by the amnesty, the petitioner, already serving sentence, sent the President a petition
    for his release under the provisions of the proclamation. No action was taken on this petition
    and the petitioner came to court with the present application. Judge Juan Enriquez, who heard
    and decided the petition in the court below, was of the opinion that "the petitioner is clearly
    covered by the amnesty proclamation" but refused to grant the writ because "he (petitioner) has
    failed to follow the procedure outlined by the implementing circulars (of the Secretary of Justice)
    so that he may avail of the benefits thereof."
    Petitioner:
    He claims that he is still entitled to the amnesty even if he is serving his sentence already. This
    is regardless whether he surrendered or not.
    Respondent:
    Petitioner is not entitled to the said amnesty because he did not surrender any firearms as the
    proclamation stated.
    Issue:
    WON the petitioner is entitled to the amnesty given be Proclamation 76
    Ruling:
    Yes, he is entitled to the said amnesty. Quite apart from this consideration, the majority of the
    Court believe that by its context and pervading spirit the proclamation extends to all members of the
    Hukbalahap and PKM organizations. It makes no exception when it announces that the amnesty is
    proclaimed "in favor of the leaders and members of the association known as Hukbalahap and
    Pambansang Kaisahan ng Magbubukid." No compelling reason is apparent for excluding
    Hukbalahaps of any class or condition from its object, which is "to forgive, and forego the
    prosecution of the crimes of rebellion, sedition, etc.," as a "just and wise measure of the
    Government." We are to suppose that the President and the Congress, knowing that a good number
    of Hukbalahap and PKM affiliates had been or were being prosecuted, would have, in clear terms,
    left them out if that had been the intention, instead of leaving their exclusion to inference.
    The avowed practical objective of the amnesty is to secure pledge of loyalty and obedience to the
    constituted authorities and encourage resumption of lawful pursuits and occupation. This objective
    cannot be expected to meet with full success without the goodwill and cooperation of the
    Hukbalahaps who have become more embittered by their capture, prosecution and incarceration.

    Fundamentally and in their utmost effect, pardon and amnesty are synonymous."the distinction
    between them is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance." It seems to be generally
    conceded in the United States that the word "'pardon' includes amnesty. This being so, the rules for
    interpreting pardon and amnesty ought not to vary. Now then, according to a well-recognized
    doctrine, pardon is construed "most strictly against the state."
    At best, the contention that the grace and beneficence of the amnesty are denied the Hukbalahaps
    who were in prison rests on the idea that being restrained of liberty they cannot surrender. Our
    answer is that surrender is required merely as a token of willingness to abide by the conditions of the
    grant. It is not intended as, and cannot accomplish the purpose of, a security. As evidence of good
    faith, surrender by Hukbalahaps from the field is not more effective than a prisoner's written and
    more solemn manifestation of his acceptance. If physical presence be deemed essential, prisoners
    not only present themselves but are under the custody of the authorities subject to their absolute
    control until released.

    You might also like