[ G.R. No. 1332. July 31, 1903 ] 2 Phil. 380
[ G.R. No. 1332. July 31, 1903 ]
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS. GERONIMO LUZON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
The motion that the defendant be included in the amnesty of July 4,1902, must be denied.
To entitle a person to the benefits of this proclamation two things, at least, must concur: (1) He must have participated in the insurrections against Spain or the United States. (2) The crime with which he is charged must be political in its nature. Common crimes, such as murder and robbery, are not included within the amnesty unless they were committed under circumstances which clothe them with a political character. This court has constantly adhered to this doctrine. In the present case, while it appears that the offense was committed by insurrectionary soldiers, there is no evidence that it was of a political nature. (United States vs. Villamor, 1 Off. Gaz., Dec. 31, 1902.[1]) The charge is illegal detention. The defendant and an armed band of six persons, of which he was the leader, presented themselves at the house of Gregorio Mistica, compelled him and his wife, Caledonia Santos, to leave it, robbed it, and then carried the man and wife into a neighboring barrio. The husband was separated from the wife, who was guarded by the defendant. The rest of the band carried the husband into the woods and soon returned with the statement that he had been killed. The wife was kept by the defendant and his companions for nine days, when she escaped, her guards having been frightened by the approach of some American soldiers. The woman testified that the persons. attacking the house were soldiers of Morales. The customary evidence that the person killed was believed by the defendants to be a spy of the Americans is entirely wanting in this case. There is nothing in it to indicate that he was not as friendly to the Filipinos as to the Americans. But it is said that, the offense having been committed by soldiers, it must be presumed, in the absence of any evidence as to motive, that it was to further the purposes of the insurrection, and therefore political in its nature. The event took place in November, 1900, in the Province of Bulacan. Malolos had been captured by the Americans more than a year and a half before, and for a long time this province had been garrisoned by the forces of that Government. While at the’time here in question there may have existed in this locality small bands of former insurrectionary soldiers, like the one led by this defendant, there was nothing that could in any sense be called an organized, disciplined, fighting force—nothing that could in any respect be called an army.
It is to be noted that in this case there was evidence to prove the crime of robbery, and that of probable murder, punished by article 483 of the Penal Code. To apply the presumption suggested would be to release in large numbers the members of those bands of outlaws who, up to May 1, 1902, committed so many murders and robberies throughout the provinces. If it appeared that they had been soldiers in the insurrection, and the motive for the crime did not appear, they would have to be discharged. The Government could avoid this result only by proving affirmatively that the motive for the crime was not political. A construction that leads to such results ought not to be given to the proclamation.
Whatever may have been the motive in this case, whether robbery or the abduction of the woman, or something else, its political character has not been made to appear. Tlte motion is therefore denied.
Arellano, C. J., Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.