Buyco vs. People

BENJAMIN BUYCO vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. No. L-6327. July 29, 1954.]
FACTS:
This is a case where Benjamin Buyco seeks a review, by certiorari, of a decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, convicting him of the crime of homicide and sentencing
him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and
1 day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of Luis
Gonzales, deceased, in the sum of four thousand (P4,000) pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The petitioner, Benjamin Buyco, was charged with murder in the Court of First Instance. Claiming that he
was entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation No. 8, the case was referred to the Tenth, Amnesty
Proclamation No. 8, with case was referred to the Tenth Amnesty Commission. With the conformity of the
parties the Amnesty Commission returned the case to the Court of First Instance for completion of the
evidence. After the completion thereof, the trial court forwarded again the record to the Amnesty
Commission for determination of Buyco’s claim to the benefits of the amnesty proclamation. The Amnesty
Commission rejected the claim and again the case was returned to the trial court for judgment on merits. A
judgment of conviction was subsequently rendered, from which judgment Buyco appealed to the Court of
Appeals. Buyco disclaimed any participation in the killing of the deceased, and, in the same breath, seek
justification of the act because of the victim’s alleged collaboration with the enemy. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court, In a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court, he urged that
the inconsistency in his stand does not warrant the conclusion drawn therefrom by the Court of Appeals
and that at least, the case should have been remanded to the trial court so that he could prove that the
deceased was killed under the conditions contemplated in the amnesty proclamation invoking the decision
in People v. Barrioquinto (89 Phil., 414.)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA’s finding on evidence can be reviewed in appeal by certiorari.
Held:
NO.The contradiction in his defenses (alibi and justification of exemption from liability) was merely one of
the factors that led the CA find that Buyco’s testimony cannot be relied upon.
In the Barrioquinto cases, the accused were tried before the issuance if Amnesty Proclamation No. 8. After
the rendition of a judgment of conviction, the accused requested the benefits of said proclamation. This
request was turned down by the Amnesty Commission, mainly upon the ground that both defendants had
denied their guilt. On appeal by one of the accused, the Supreme Court held that the alibi set up by the
accused before the amnesty proclamation should not bar him thereafter to prove that his case came within
the purview of said proclamation, its existence being unknown when the accused were tried, The court
further held that "the accused need not openly and expressly admit having committed the deed imputed to
them, and the fact that they at first denied responsibility or denied having committed the criminal act, does
not prevent the application of the amnesty to them, if and when the evidence shows they are included
within its terms, because they did the act in support of guerrilla warfare."
In the case at bar, the Tenth Amnesty Commission, the CFI and the CA found, in effect, that the evidence
did not suffice to show that Buyco had acted in the manner contemplated in the amnesty proclamation.
Moreover, unlike the Barrioquinto case, which were appealed directly to this Court, which accordingly, had
authority to pass upon the validity of the finding of fact of the court of first instance and of its conclusions on
the veracity of the witnesses, the case at bar is before the Supreme Court on appeal by certiorari from a
decision of the Court of Appeals, the findings and conclusion of which are not subject to review except in
case of grave abuse of discretion, which has not been shown to exist . Again, Buyco closed his evidence in
the Court of First Instance long after he had invoked the benefits of the proclamation. He had ample
opportunity to prove, and did try to establish, that the crime charged was perpetrated in pursuance of the
resistance movement but he did not make good use of this opportunity. It is obvious that the decision in
Barrioquinto cases does not militate in his favor.

Buyco vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buyco vs. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buyco vs. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENJAMIN BUYCO vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

You might also like