Você está na página 1de 1


MACADAEG *obiter dictum- passing or incidental statements; statements made or decisions reached in a court opinion which were not necessary to the disposition of the case; uttered by way, not upon the point or question pending, as if turning aside from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects; opinion of the court upon any point or principle which it is not required to decide. A. Facts Petition to prevent and restrain Seventh Guerilla Amnesty Commission from taking jurisdiction and cognizance of a petition for amnesty filed by respondent Antonio Guillermo a.k.a Silver Seventh Guerilla Amnesty Commission- Hons. Macadaeg, Potenciano Pecson, Ramon R. San Jose Antonio Guillermo- convicted and sentenced for murder July 15, 1947- case filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos NorteMar. 29, 1948- judgment. Appeal to the Supreme Court- judgment on May 19, 1950expressly ruled in the judgment of conviction that Guillermo is not entitled to the benefits of amnesty because the murders which he was convicted were committed not in furtherance of the resistance movement but in the course of a fratricidal strife between two rival guerilla units. Motion for reconsideration- June 5, 1950- denied July 13, 1950 June 20, 1950- filed for suspension of the proceedings and reference of the case to the Seventh Guerilla Amnesty Commission- denied July 13, 1950 Petition for amnesty- July 8, 1950

B. Issue Whether the pronouncement of the Court is obiter dictum and if the Commission has jurisdiction over the petition for amnesty of the convicted. C. Ruling The petition for prohibition was granted and the preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court on Nov. 24, 1950 made absolute with costs against Guillermo. He may not raise again the issue in any tribunal, judicial or administrative and is now estopped from contesting the judgment, of the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the adverse ruling. D. Ratio Seventh Guerilla Amnesty Commission can take cognizance only of cases pending appeal in the Supreme Court on October 2, 1946, at that time, during which date the Guillermo criminal case was still pending in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. Guillermos case was assigned to the Second GAC. Seventh GACs claim of jurisdiction of the application was merely based on administrative Order no. 217 which expressly states in view of the appointments of new Judges of First Instances and not for the purpose of setting forth cases cognizable by each of the different commissions. The courts are not excluded in deciding any claim for amnesty, thus the Court has jurisdiction over the amnesty petition of Guillermo. It was also found that the petition was an ill-advised attempt to delay execution of the judgment of conviction which no court of justice will countenance. The finding of the Court that Guillermo is not entitled to the benefits of amnesty is final and conclusive, not an obiter dictum, under the principle of res judicata.