THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-26539. February 28, 1990.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellant, vs. GAUDENCIO VERA,

ET AL. , defendants. TAGUMPAY A. NANADIEGO , defendant-appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS; JURISDICTION; IN CASES OF CONCURRENT

JURISDICTION, COURT FIRST ACQUIRING JURISDICTION EXCLUDES OTHER COURTS;
JURISDICTION ONCE ACQUIRED NOT LOST UPON INSTANCE OF PARTIES BUT
CONTINUES UNITE IS TERMINATED. — The records, however, show that the appellee
Tagumpay Nanadiego applied for Amnesty before the Armed Forces of the Philippines
Amnesty Commission on July 26, 1954 right after the case was led in the Justice of
the Peace Court of Unisan, Quezon. On the other hand, the Court of First Instance of
Quezon, upon motion of the Provincial Fiscal, referred the case (Criminal Case No.
12145) to the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission, on August 12, 1955. Therefore,
insofar as appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego is concerned, jurisdiction was properly
acquired by the Armed Forces of the Philippines Amnesty Commission earlier than that
of the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission. Furthermore, it appears that appellee
Tagumpay Nanadiego did not participate in the proceedings before the 8th Guerilla
Amnesty Commission. Be that as it may, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court
rst acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts (Lee v. Presiding Judge, G.R. No.
68789, November 10, 1986, 145 SCRA 408). Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon
the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated (Abadilla v. Ramos,
G.R. No. 71973, December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 92; Lat v. Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Co., 69 SCRA 425 [1975], et al.
2. CRIMINAL LAW; TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY; AMNESTY;
CONCEPT, EXPLAINED; A PUBLIC ACT OF WHICH THE COURT SHOULD TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE. — On July 7, 1959, the criminal liability of the appellee had been completely
extinguished by virtue of the amnesty extended him by the Amnesty Commission,
Armed Forces of the Philippines in Resolution No. 1-F 859. It has been consistently
ruled by this Court that 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 (Barrioquinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, et al., 82 Phil. 642 [1949]).
Amnesty is a public act of which the court should take judicial notice.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; BENEFITS THEREOF CAN NOT BE WAIVED. — The right to the
bene ts of amnesty, once established by the evidence presented, either by the
complainant or prosecution or by the defense, can not be waived, because it is of public
interest that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation, which has the
force of law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never
committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or hero,
and not be punished as criminal (Barrioquinto, et al. v. Fernandez, et al., supra).
Moreover, when the Court a quo dismissed the case upon motion of defendant-
appellee based on the resolution of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Amnesty
Commission granting him amnesty, said court did not commit grave abuse of
discretion.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 4. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; MOTION TO QUASH; GROUNDS;
CRIMINAL ACTION OR LIABILITY TOTALLY EXTINGUISHED BY AMNESTY. — One of the
grounds for a motion to quash a criminal case is when the criminal action or liability has
been extinguished (Sec. 2[f], Rule 117). Criminal action or liability is totally extinguished
by, among others, amnesty.

DECISION

BIDIN , J : p

This is an appeal interposed by the People of the Philippines from the Order * of
the then Court of First Instance of Quezon, Ninth Judicial District, Branch II, in Criminal
Case No. 12145 dated January 23, 1965, dismissing the case as against defendant-
appellee Tagumpay A. Nanadiego with cost de oficio.
The dispositive portion of the said order reads:
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant case is Ordered dismissed as
against this defendant Tagumpay A. Nanadiego, with cost de o cio. The bail
bond posted by said defendant for his provisional liberty is hereby cancelled and
declared of no further force and affect.

SO ORDERED."

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On July 23, 1954, a complaint for kidnapping with murder docketed as Criminal
Case No. 2454 was led in the Justice of the Peace Court of Unisan, Quezon by Sgt.
Francisco G. de Asis, P.C. of Lucena City against the following: Gaudencio Vera,
Restituto Figueras, Lorenzo Ambas, Justo Florido, Arcadio Talavera, Sr., Tagumpay
Nanadiego, Paulino Bayran, Jaime Garcia and 92 others (Record, Vol. I, p. 1).
On December 20, 1954, a manifestation and motion was led by the accused
Gaudencio Vera, Restituto Figueras, Lorenzo Ambas and Tagumpay Nanadiego through
counsel de Mesa and de Mesa where the above-named accused entered a plea of not
guilty and further renounced their rights to the second stage of the preliminary
investigation by the justice of the peace, and nally prayed that the case be elevated to
the Court of First Instance of Quezon (Record, Vol. I, p. 23) which was granted in an
order dated December 22, 1954 by the aforesaid court (Record, Vol. I, pp. 24-25).
In February 23, 1955, an information (Record, Vol. I, p. 94) was led by the then
Provincial Fiscal Jose O. Lardizabal in the Court of First Instance of Quezon charging
the accused (including Tagumpay Nanadiego) with the complex crime of Kidnapping
with murder, de ned and punished under Articles 48, 267 and 248 of the Revised Penal
Code committed as follows:
"That on or about the 13th day of February, 1945, in the Municipality of
Unisan, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of His Hon.
Court, the above-named accused Gaudencio Vera, Restituto Figueras, Lorenzo
Ambas, Justo Florido, Arcadio Talavera, Tagumpay Nanadiego and Paulino
Bayran alias Enong, together with Jaime Garcia and 92 other John Does who are
still at large armed with high power ri es such as .50 caliber machinegun, .30
caliber machinegun, Browning automatic ri es, carbines, Garrands, Spring eld
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ri es, pistols and Revolver of different calibers, and by means of force, threats
and intimidation, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap one
Amadeo Lozanes in his residence at said municipality of Unisan, Quezon, with
both hands tied together, detain and carry him to Vera's Headquarters located at
Lalaguna, Municipality of Lopez, Quezon, and while he (Amadeo Lozanes) was
under their custody and control, in pursuance of their conspiracy, taking
advantage of their superior strength, with intent to kill and with evident
premeditation willfully, unlawfully and feloniously boxed, kicked, tortured and
later on executed on March 14, 1945, in the said barrio of Lalaguna, Lopez,
Quezon.
Contrary to law."

On May 11, 1955, an Urgent Petition was led by Provincial Fiscal Lardizabal
praying that the case be referred to the Amnesty Commission (Record, Vol. I, p. 158).
On the same date, the AFP Amnesty Commission requested the Provincial Fiscal to
furnish said Commission with a true copy of the records of Criminal Case No. 12145.
The records requested were forwarded to the Commission on July 15, 1955 (Brief for
the Appellant, p. 3, Rollo, p. 27).
On June 22, 1955, the Provincial Fiscal led an amended information against the
same accused (including accused-appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego) for the same
offense in the Court of First Instance of Quezon (Record, Vol. I, p. 207).
On August 12, 1955, the above case was referred to the 8th Guerilla Amnesty
Commission (Record, Vol. I, p. 229). Few days thereafter, Hon. Vicente del Rosario of
the Court First Instance of Quezon, acting upon authority from the Department of
Justice, convoked the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission composed of different judges
of Laguna, Mindoro, Batangas and Quezon (Brief for the Appellant, p. 3; Rollo, p. 27).
On June 12, 1956, after a continuous trial of the case, in which Tagumpay
Nanadiego was one of the accused, the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission held that
none of the defendants admitted having committed the crime charged. Such being the
case, defendants have no use for amnesty as amnesty presupposes the commission of
a crime; hence, the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission has no jurisdiction, thereby
remanding the case to the court a quo (Record, Vol. II, p. 156).
On July 20, 1956, accused led a motion for reconsideration (Record, Vol. I, p.
167) which the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission denied in its order dated January 11,
1957, and maintained its order to return the case to the Court of First Instance of
Quezon for lack of jurisdiction (Record, Vol. II, p. 175).
Thereafter, the accused interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the
decision and order of the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission under date of June 12,
1956 and January 11, 1957, respectively (Record, Vol. II, pp. 185-186) for which reason
the entire record was elevated to the Court of Appeals as per order dated February 12,
1957 (Record, Vol. II, p. 187). On appeal, the case was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 2004-R.
LexLib

On November 16, 1960, the Court of Appeals, in its decision a rmed the
decision and order appealed from (Record, Vol. II, p. 191). Later, a petition for review
was filed in the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-18184.
In a decision dated January 31, 1963, this Court a rmed the decision and order
of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed, and ruled that a previous admission of
guilt is necessary in amnesty since the invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of confession and avoidance, which means that the pleader admits the allegations
against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which, if
proved, would bring the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation
(Record, Vol. II, p. 198). The above decision became nal and executory on November 6,
1963 as per Entry of Judgment (Record, Vol. II, p. 204).
On December 21, 1963, Special Prosecutor Artemio T. Asuncion led a petition
ex parte in the Court of First Instance of Quezon praying that a trial on the merits of the
case be continued for which reason the case was set for arraignment and trial
sometime in January, 1964 (Record, Vol. II, p. 205).
On January 11, 1965, defendant-appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego led an "Urgent
Motion to Quash the Information" (Record, Vol. II, p. 357) in the above entitled case on
the ground that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished by virtue of the
amnesty extended him by the Amnesty Commission, Armed Forces of the Philippines in
Resolution No. 1-F 859 (Record, Vol. II, p. 360) dated July 7, 1959 in accordance with
Proclamation No. 8, series of 1946 of the President of the Philippines, and that the
defendant-appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego, claimed that he applied before the Amnesty
Commission; Armed Forces of the Philippines on July 26, 1954 for amnesty under
Proclamation No. 8, s. 46 of the President of the Philippines in connection with the
charge led against him on July 23, 1954 before the Justice of the Peace Court of
Unisan, Quezon. However, on January 22, 1965, an opposition to the urgent motion to
quash was led by special prosecutor Artemio T. Asuncion although the latter in his
opposition admits that "on July 7, 1959, the AFP Amnesty Commission cleared the
petitioner Tagumpay Nanadiego in its decision" (Record, Vol. II, p. 371).
Subsequently, the Court of First Instance of Quezon, in an order dated January 23,
1965 ordered that the aforesaid case against Tagumpay Nanadiego be dismissed
(Record, Vol. II, p. 375) on the ground that "the crime for which the accused was
charged in the Armed Forces Amnesty Commission is the same charge in the criminal
case No. 12145" which was "admitted by the Special Prosecutor of the Department of
Justice in open court" manifesting that the accused was granted amnesty on July 7,
1959. Further, the lower court ruled that "to try the accused under the information in
criminal case No. 12145 would be tantamount to trying him for an offense where he
has been granted amnesty long time ago, and to try him again would constitute double
jeopardy." However, a motion for reconsideration dated January 31, 1965 was led by
special prosecutor Artemio T. Asuncion (Record, Vol. II, p. 377) which was denied by
the trial court in its order dated February 6, 1965 (Record, Vol. II, p. 401).
Cdpr

Hence, this appeal.

On February 11, 1965, the special prosecutor led a notice of appeal from the
order dated January 23, 1965 dismissing the case against Tagumpay Nanadiego
(Record, Vol. II, p. 400). Meanwhile, on May 24, 1965, a Motion to Set Arraignment and
Trial and Manifestation was led by the special prosecutor in the trial court (Record,
Vol. II, pp. 402-403) which was granted in an order dated August 28, 1965 and the
arraignment and trial was set on September 4, 1965 (Record, Vol. II, p. 411).
On the other hand, defendants led through their counsel a Petition and Counter
Petition in the Court of First Instance of Quezon dated August 27, 1965 followed by
their Motion for Reconsideration dated September 3, 1965 (Record, Vol. II, p. 412)
which seeks to set aside the order dated August 28, 1965 and approval of the Petition
and Counter Petition dated August 27, 1965 (Record, Vol. II, p. 410). Accordingly, on
September 10, 1965, the Court of First Instance of Quezon issued an Order denying the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit (Record, Vol. II, p. 414).
A petition to elevate the case was led by Special Prosecutor Artemio T.
Asuncion on November 5, 1965 (Record, Vol. II, p. 429) in connection with the appealed
case against defendant-appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego. Likewise, said Special
Prosecutor led a 4th Motion to set arraignment and trial in the Court of First Instance
of Quezon against the other defendants on January 24, 1966 (Record, Vol. II, p. 432)
which was granted in an order of the Court a quo dated February 26, 1966 and the
arraignment and trial was set on June 21, 1966 (Record, Vol. II, p 436).
The lower court not having elevated the case to this Court, Special Prosecutor
Artemio T. Asuncion led on February 28, 1966 another Petition to elevate the case to
the Supreme Court (Record, Vol. II, p. 456) which was granted by the a quo in its order
dated March 5, 1966 (Rollo, p. 6).
On July 11, 1966, the Court a quo acting on the Manifestation of the Special
Prosecutor, ordered the cancellation and postponement of the arraignment and trial
scheduled on that day until the special prosecutor shall have terminated the
reinvestigation of the case with respect to some of the defendants or until such time
that he (the Special Prosecutor) has led an amended information. In the same order,
the court a quo reiterating its order dated March 5, 1966, ordered the elevation of the
record of the case to the Supreme Court (Rollo, p. 7). Thus, on August 15, 1966 (Rollo,
p. 1; p. 40), the records of the case was elevated to this Court. Said records, however,
show that the trial has not been finished as regards the other accused (Rollo, p. 82).
cdll

On March 13, 1967, the Solicitor General, representing the People of the
Philippines, appellant, led its Brief (Rollo, p. 27). Meanwhile, in the Court a quo, the
Special Prosecutor led a Motion to Dismiss dated October 18, 1967 against the
defendants for lack of su cient evidence and loss of interest of the prosecution
witnesses, whose testimony is indispensable without which the prosecution cannot
prosecute the same (Rollo, p. 41). On November 20, 1967, the court a quo acting on the
Motion to Dismiss, ruled that it can act on said motion, when the special prosecutor has
withdrawn his appeal in order that the record of the case be returned to the court a quo
(Rollo, p. 48).
On the other hand, this Court, in its resolution dated February 19, 1980 (Rollo, p.
37) considered this case submitted for decision without Appellee's Brief, while
defendants led in this Court on February 20, 1980 a Motion for Remand of Record to
the Court of First Instance of Quezon in order that the pending motion to dismiss
before the Court a quo may be acted upon (Rollo, p. 38).
In its resolution dated March 4, 1980, this Court required the Solicitor General to
comment on the motion led by the counsel for accused-appellee dated February 9,
1980 (Rollo, p. 50) which was complied with by the Solicitor General in a comment led
on June 5, 1980 (Rollo, p. 81).
In the resolution of June 17, 1980, this Court granted the motion to remand the
case to the Court of First Instance of Quezon (Rollo, p. 86).
On August 25, 1980, the court a quo, in resolving the Motion to Dismiss dated
October 18, 1967 led by Special Prosecutor Artemio T. Asuncion, ordered the
dismissal of the case against all the accused, with the exception of accused Tagumpay
Nanadiego and further ordered the return of the record of this case to this Court where
the appeal of the State Prosecutor in connection with the case as against the accused-
appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego is still pending (Record, Vol. IV, p. 189).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 On April 11, 1988, this Court in its Resolution required the parties to manifest
whether or not they are still interested in prosecuting this case or if supervening events
have transpired which render the case moot and academic or otherwise substantially
affect the same (Rollo, p. 102).
On July 11, 1988, the Solicitor General led a manifestation stating that he is still
interested in prosecuting the case (Rollo, p. 111). LLphil

In its brief, appellant assigned the following errors:

I

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

WAS VALIDLY GRANTED AMNESTY ON JULY 7, 1959 BY THE ARMED FORCES
COMMISSION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE 8TH GUERILLA AMNESTY
COMMISSION IN ITS DECISION DATED JUNE 12, 1956 HAS ALREADY DENIED
AMNESTY TO DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12145 AND SUSTAINED BY
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS
DECISIONS DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1960 AND JANUARY 21, 1963.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TO TRY THE DEFENDANT-
APPELLEE UNDER THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE 12145 WOULD
CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AS AGAINST
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TAGUMPAY NANADIEGO."

The pivotal issue of the case is whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing
the case against Tagumpay Nanadiego.
In its Brief, appellant People of the Philippines contends that the trial court erred
in dismissing the case against herein appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego. Appellant averred
that the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission and the Armed Forces of the Philippines
Amnesty Commission both derived authorities from Proclamation No. 8, series of 1946
by the President of the Philippines. In this connection, as creations of the said
proclamation, both commissions have concurrent jurisdiction over the case at bar and
the rst body that acquires jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of the other. Appellant
further claimed that the decision of the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission dated June
12, 1956 was issued or rendered earlier than that of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines Amnesty Commission dated July 7, 1959. Hence, the decision of the former
is the controlling decision in the case at bar.
The records, however, show that the appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego applied for
Amnesty before the Armed Forces of the Philippines Amnesty Commission on July 26,
1954 right after the case was led in the Justice of the Peace Court of Unisan, Quezon.
On the other hand, the Court of First Instance of Quezon, upon motion of the Provincial
Fiscal, referred the case (Criminal Case No. 12145) to the 8th Guerilla Amnesty
Commission, on August 12, 1955. Therefore, insofar as appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego
is concerned, jurisdiction was properly acquired by the Armed Forces of the Philippines
Amnesty Commission earlier than that of the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission.
Furthermore, it appears that appellee Tagumpay Nanadiego did not participate in the
proceedings before the 8th Guerilla Amnesty Commission. Be that as it may, in cases
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of concurrent jurisdiction, the court rst acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts
(Lee v. Presiding Judge , G.R. No. 68789, November 10, 1986, 145 SCRA 408).
Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues
until the case is terminated (Abadilla v. Ramos , G.R. No. 71973, December 1, 1987, 156
SCRA 92; Lat v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. , 69 SCRA 425 [1975]; Republic
v. Central Surety & Insurance Co. , 25 SCRA 641 [1968]; Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v.
Manila Railroad Company, 16 SCRA 908 [1966]; Tuvera v. de Guzman , 13 SCRA 729
[1965]). LLpr

On July 7, 1959, the criminal liability of the appellee had been completely
extinguished by virtue of the amnesty extended him by the Amnesty Commission,
Armed Forces of the Philippines in Resolution No. 1-F 859. It has been consistently
ruled by this Court that 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 (Barrioquinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, et al., 82 Phil. 642 [1949]).
Amnesty is a public act of which the court should take judicial notice. Thus, the right to
the bene ts of amnesty, once established by the evidence presented, either by the
complainant or prosecution or by the defense, can not be waived, because it is of public
interest that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation, which has the
force of law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never
committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or hero,
and not be punished as criminal (Barrioquinto, et al. v. Fernandez, et al., supra).
Moreover, when the Court a quo dismissed the case upon motion of defendant-
appellee based on the resolution of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Amnesty
Commission granting him amnesty, said court did not commit grave abuse of
discretion.
One of the grounds for a motion to quash a criminal case is when the criminal
action or liability has been extinguished (Sec. 2[f], Rule 117). Criminal action or liability
is totally extinguished by, among others, amnesty. Thus, Art. 89 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
"Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is
totally extinguished:
xxx xxx xxx

(3) By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;.
xxx xxx xxx"

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Court a quo, acting on the motion
to dismiss dated October 18, 1967 led by Special Prosecutor Artemio T. Asuncion in
Criminal Case No. 12145 alleging as grounds therefor, among others, insu ciency of
evidence to warrant the prosecution of the case, issued an order dated August 20,
1980 dismissing the case against all the accused except appellee Tagumpay
Nanadiego. The latter was excluded from the order of dismissal because of the
pendency of this appeal. To remand the case for further proceedings before the trial
court at this late hour when as early as October 18, 1967, the prosecution has
admittedly no evidence su cient to warrant its prosecution, is a useless ritual which
would not serve the ends of justice. At the risk of being repetitious, nothing would be
gained by remanding the case to the court a quo for further proceedings since there is
no offense to prosecute.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE, the Order of the trial court dated January 23, 1965 dismissing
Criminal Case No. 12145 as against appellee Tagumpay A. Nanadiego with cost de
oficio is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Penned by Judge Manolo L. Maddela.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com