G.R. No. L-936 - NOVEMBER 1902 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-936November 29, 1902 United States vs. Catalino Colocar, et al. G.R. No. L-989November 28, 1902 John Gruidron vs. Lizarraga Hermanos G.R. No. L-1105November 26, 1902 In the matter of the petition of R.W. Carr, et al. for a writ of habeas corpus G.R. No. L-1084November 26, 1902 John Fischer vs. Byron S. Ambler, et al. G.R. No. L-968November 26, 1902 Francisco M. Go-Quico vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-493November 25, 1902 United States vs. Antonio Acuña, et al. G.R. No. L-1066November 22, 1902 Sitia Teco vs. Heirs of Balbino Ventura Hocorma G.R. No. L-955November 21, 1902 Ramon Chaves vs. Ramon Nery Linan G.R. No. L-855November 21, 1902 Hijos de I. de La Rama vs. Vicente Benedicto G.R. No. L-956November 18, 1902 Francisco Irureta Goyena vs. Ildefonso Tambunting G.R. No. L-552November 17, 1902 United States vs. Ui Matiao, et al. G.R. No. L-880November 14, 1902 United States vs. Roman Sarmiento G.R. No. L-1064November 13, 1902 A. S. Watson & Co., Limitted vs. Rafael Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-951November 13, 1902 United States vs. Juan Salandanan G.R. No. L-885November 11, 1902 United States vs. Marcelo de Guzman G.R. No. L-985November 10, 1902 United States vs. Anacleto Santillana, et al. G.R. No. L-927November 8, 1902 United States vs. Jaime Ubiñana G.R. No. L-922November 8, 1902 Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera vs. Vicente Garcia Valdez G.R. No. L-964November 4, 1902 United States vs. Catalino Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-947November 4, 1902 United States vs. Donato Salandanan, et al. G.R. No. L-959November 3, 1902 Juan Ismael vs. Manuel Ganzon G.R. No. L-879November 3, 1902 United States vs. Ciriaco Baluyut, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Catalino Colocar, et al. John Gruidron vs. Lizarraga Hermanos In the matter of the petition of R.W. Carr, et al. for a writ of habeas corpus John Fischer vs. Byron S. Ambler, et al. Francisco M. Go-Quico vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, et al. United States vs. Antonio Acuña, et al. Sitia Teco vs. Heirs of Balbino Ventura Hocorma Ramon Chaves vs. Ramon Nery Linan Hijos de I. de La Rama vs. Vicente Benedicto Francisco Irureta Goyena vs. Ildefonso Tambunting United States vs. Ui Matiao, et al. United States vs. Roman Sarmiento A. S. Watson & Co., Limitted vs. Rafael Enriquez, et al. United States vs. Juan Salandanan United States vs. Marcelo de Guzman United States vs. Anacleto Santillana, et al. United States vs. Jaime Ubiñana Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera vs. Vicente Garcia Valdez United States vs. Catalino Ortiz, et al. United States vs. Donato Salandanan, et al. Juan Ismael vs. Manuel Ganzon United States vs. Ciriaco Baluyut, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-936 November 29, 1902
THE UNITED STATES,complainant-appellee,
vs.
CATALINO COLOCAR, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.
Eugenio de Lara, for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.
ARELLANO,C.J.:
For the purpose of determining the applicability of the amnesty proclamation the following facts may be taken as proven: (1) That Catalino Colocar was regarded as an officer with the rank of second lieutenant of infantry, and that as such he took part in the insurrection against the American Government in Mindoro; (2) that he received from Maj. Estanislao Cayton orders to kill Mariano Finohermoso, who was considered to be a spy of the American Army; (3) that Ceferino Colocar protected his son, Catalino, in this matter; (4) that the other defendants are accused of having participated in some degree in the actual killing of Finohermoso, this participation consisting in the digging of the grave and the burial of Finohermoso, by order of Catalino Colocar. It does not appear that there was or could have been any other motive for the killing.
Upon the hypothesis of the guilt of the defendants, it would be, therefore, a crime of a political character committed by the defendant Catalino Colocar, the principal offender, in obedience to an order received from a military authority, and consequently the case falls strictly within the terms of the amnesty proclamation.lawphi1.net
We therefore hold that Catalino Colocar, Ceferino Colocar, Lucio Alcala, and Diego Cueto, defendants in the present case, are embraced by the amnesty proclamation, upon condition of their taking and subscribing before a competent authority the oath prescribed in the proclamation of July 4, 1902, with the costsde oficio.So ordered.
Torres, Cooper, Smith, Willard, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.