“AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS: THE MARCOSES AND JULIO NALUNDASAN

MURDER CONTROVERSY”

Case Study Report

MEMBERS:

CABANGLAN, LESLIE F.
LLAMEG, JOHN PAUL V.
(BSCRIM-2A)

SUBMITTED TO:
MS. NESTLIE V. MARUQUIN, RCRIM

March 2024
 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page 1
Table of Contents 2

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study ---------------------------------------------------------3
B. Objectives-----------------------------------------------------------------------------5
C. Significance of the Study----------------------------------------------------------6

II. NARRATIVE
A. Discussion of the Executive Summary of the Study------------------------7
B. Discussion over the Subject matter-------------------------------------- ------8

III. CASE ANALYSIS

A. Present situation/problem---------------------------------------------------------9
B. Case with court decision-----------------------------------------------------------11
C. Counter measure/government action-------------------------------------------12

IV. Proposed solutions/strategies-------------------------------------------------14

V. Conclusion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------17
VI. References----------------------------------------------------------------------------19
 2
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the study
According to Revised Penal Code, Article 248, Murder is a crime
committed by the killing of a human being which does not constitute parricide or
infanticide and where it is both alleged and proven that the killing was attended by
any of the qualifying aggravating circumstances.
Politicians with criminal records or facing criminal charges and who
also win elections are a common spectacle within the Philippine practice of
democracy. According to Boorhiss (2007), criminal charges do not keep Philippine
politicians out of politics; he argues that delays arising from slow criminal justice
processes, often abetted by political pressures, reduce the effects of convictions on
resourceful politicians to almost nothing. This study illustrates additional dynamics
that intervene in the relationship between crime and politics and how the criminal
justice system can provide potent forums for the construction of political identities
and careers.
The second World War severely impacted the Philippines, but with the
close of the war came genuine self-autonomy for the Philippines. Furthermore,
between independence in 1946 and Marcos‟s declaration of martial law in 1972, the
Philippines‟ state and society developed and modernized quite significantly. The
national government budget of 78 million pesos grew over 800 percent in constant
pesos between 1930 and 1960. The budget more than doubled by 1972 and reached
4.03 billion pesos. The number of government employees, which had totaled 29,420
in 1930, also rose dramatically due to the strong public demand for government jobs.
The new figure totaled to over 500,000 government employees in 1972. In fact, while
the Philippine population had grown roughly 100 percent between 1930 and 1960,
the number of government employees rose 1100 percent over the same period.
(Ithaca: Cornell University Pess, 1988)
Philippine journalists (Petras and Abaya 2007, Shay Cullen 2009, Roth 2009)
have noted the deleterious effects that politicians with criminal records who are
successful in electoral races have on Philippine public life. One of the causes of
Philippine election-related violence and the successful participation of the criminal
politician in electoral races is warlordism. The first generation of Philippine warlords
appeared after World War II. Filipino war veterans with strong political ambitions
were able to establish local fiefdoms using the guns and followers they amassed
during the war. Philippine sociologist Randy David (2009) described this type of
distortion of Philippine democracy as ―the colonization of the weak state by local
warlords recycled as public officials‖ (para. 6). Occurrences of election-related
violence are a manifestation of a weak centralized state government. It shows the
failure of criminal justice institutions to protect the rights and freedoms of the
individual in electoral processes.
 3
This study is significant in part because no other study has examined the
nature of the conversion of an individual ‘s criminal activity and/or criminalization into
political capital in Philippine electoral processes or the effects of such
transformations on politics, governance, crime, and justice. According to Hagan
(1997: 27), criminologists rarely direct their attention to governmental crime ―due to
the lack of access to the politically powerful‖ and ―the ability of the political elites to
cover up their crimes.‖ But, when the crimes of the powerful become explicit
components of their public personae and they use crime as capital in their political
careers, as in the Philippines, these intersections of crime and politics become more
accessible to the researcher while raising interesting questions about their
interrelationships. As Scheingold (1998: 861) states, ―understandings of crime and
[access to criminals] differ from time to time, from place to place and vary among
different societies.
The fundamental dimensions of crime as behavior and crime as a social
problem are first examined. Among these are the manner and extent to which
violations of the criminal code come to the attention of the police and the courts, the
criminogenic factors and forces which lead persons into crime, the indications of the
amount or extent of crime and the number of persons who get involved, and the
impact of crime on victims of criminal aggression.
Issues which become public are selected from among the social problems
which parts of the population may perceive. Groups differ in their definitions of social
problems in accordance with their self-interests and their ideology. For a social
problem to become a public issue, a complex political process develops around the
activities of major institutional actors: the media, officialdom, and private interest
groups. Yet conflicts arise not only over what is to be a public issue, but also over
how the problem is to be diagnosed and responded to. A somewhat different set of
institutional and social actors are more intimately involved in the conflict between
competing diagnoses of publicly recognized social problems. That is, official
authorities, underdog partisans, privileged partisans, policy advisors and planners,
and ideologues, all tend toward their own distinct set of attributions. The parties may
handle the conflict by confronting each other, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, or in
addition, they may attempt tacit bargaining over tangible matters such as economic
resources and power, and reality negotiation over the symbolic matter of different
problem definitions or diagnoses. Legislation provides a third way of handling the
conflict.
Whatever the strategies used, the conflict generates significant political
outcomes for the policy process and the various parties concerned. (Robert Ross,
Graham L. Staines, 2014)
Some studies that examine the politicization of crime in the United States
portray politicians who benefit from becoming known as crime fighters; these
politicians do not commit crimes. Such studies include The Politics of Crime and
 4
Criminal Justice by Erika S. Fairchild and Vincent J. Webb (1985), and
―Mayoral Rivals Debate Crime Fears and Statistics‖ by James C. McKinley (1993),
The Politics of Law and Order by Stuart A. Scheingold (1998) and The Politics of
Law Enforcement by Edward Bent (1974). These studies ask only how the ways
politicians use crime rates and statistics affect their electability and popularity.
Edward Bent (1974), for example, studies how politicians have used public crime for
their ―war on crime. Scholars of the politicization of crime argue that the crimes of
others can become capital for a politician‘s career, and a politician‘s style of politics
can strongly influence law enforcement practices. Fairchild and Webb‘s (Ibid.) study
highlights the role of crime rates in political processes. They describe how the war on
crime shapes the heroic image of the politician whose toughness ―on crime would
put an end to the growing chaos in American society‖ (Rosch 1985: 25).
The theoretical framework is grounded in the social interactionist perspective
and coercive action theory. Social interactionism stresses the importance of personal
variables and situational factors in the study of violent encounters, rather than
emphasizing the importance of one over the other. Coercive action theory identifies
the important factors that affect individual decision-making processes in conflict
situations. The propositions associated with coercive action theory predict that guns
provide people with power that permits them to carry out their intentions. The
findings do not support the expectation that gun effects depend on whether or not
the possessor/user intends to seriously injure an opponent. The effects of guns on
the outcomes of violent events may be confounded with the effects of individual
intentions because those with the strongest motivation to injure may choose a more
"serious" weapon. Results indicate that, net of personal influences, the independent
effects of guns are not radically different when situation-specific intentions are
controlled than when intentions are not controlled. Situation-specific intentions to
injure significantly increase the changes that a respondent will attack his opponent,
that a respondent will injure his opponent, and that a respondent will seriously injure
his opponent. The relationship between an individual's intentions to seriously injure
and an individual's choice of weapon must be examined further. (Williams Wells,
2001).
Section 1 outlines judicial power and greatly extends the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, defining judicial power to be:
The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
The power to decide whether or not there have been “grave abuses of
discretion” allows the Supreme Court to settle political arguments. Previously, the
Supreme Court tended to refrain from deciding upon political matters and authorities
defended themselves against the judiciary by invoking the political nature of their
actions, which was outside thejurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This political
protection was the first provision that the Constitutional Commission removed.
Importantly, because the phrase “grave abuses of discretion” is somewhat
ambiguous, the provision can expand or contract according to the nature of the
Supreme Court and its willingness to intervene in political matters.
The immediate attention that the Constitutional Commission paid to the
judiciary‟s power and its role in protecting the people against the executive and
legislative branch reflects the Supreme Court‟s ineffectiveness under President
Marcos. In a further act of judicial empowerment, Article VIII, Section 5, Part 2 grants
the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases regarding ambassadors, public ministers,
consuls etc., and reserves for the high court, final judgment on the constitutionality of
any government decree or pronouncement. Additionally, under the 1987
Constitution, only Congress may grant the President emergency powers, stating:
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall
cease upon the next adjournment thereof. (Tate, C. Neal and Haynie, Stacia
L.,1993)
The study is all about the controversy that the Marcoses killed Julio
Nalundasan, with the use of a pistol, shoot him to the head that caused him to death,
after the electoral triumph against Mariano Marcos, his rival candidate for the
representative office of the second district of the province. Mariano Marcos suffered
a significant defeat by Julio Nalundasan in the 1935 election for a National Assembly
seat in Northern Luzon.
B. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The general objective of the study is to analyze the truth behind the
controversy that Mariano Marcos killed Julio Nalundasan, since they are rival in
politics for a long period of time. Specifically,

1. To analyze properly the case if there are fouls happened.

2. To examine the evidences and legal proceedings presented in the court.
3. To determine what punishment may be impose to the crime committed.
C. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is beneficial to the Local Government Unit of Batac, Ilocos Norte,
Department of Justice, College of Criminal Justice Education, Researchers and
Future Researchers, because it would be an essential for them in unraveling the
truth behind the Marcos and Nalundasan murder case.
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF ILOCOS NORTE- The local government
unit of Ilocos Norte, particularly Batac, where the murder took place, may find
significance in studying this case. It provides insights into the historical context of the
region, the impact of political rivalries, and the consequences of political violence on
the local community.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE- The DOJ, particularly its Division of
Investigation, has a vested interest in understanding the details and implications of
the Nalundasan murder case. It helps them analyze past investigations and legal
proceedings, potentially informing their current practices.
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION- Studying the case of the
Marcoses and Nalundasan offers valuable insights into the complexities of criminal
justice systems, including issues of political influence, corruption and abuse of
power. Analyzing this case provides students with a real-word example to
understand the intricacies of criminal investigations, legal proceedings, and the role
of forensic evidence in achieving justice.
RESEARCHERS- The researchers would gain a deeper understanding of the
legal and judicial processes of the time through their study. They would analyze the
investigations, trials, and acquittal of the accused, shedding light on the strengths,
weaknesses, and potential biases of the judicial system during that era.
FUTURE RESEARCHERS- The findings of this study will serve as basis for
future researcher’s research.

NARRATIVE
A. Discussion of the Executive summary of the study
The early years of Marcos Sr. were complicated by widespread
misinformation, contradictory “facts,” and deliberate disinformation (Bonner 1987).
Marcos was a brilliant law student at the University of the Philippines when he was
arrested and tried for the murder of his father’s political rival in Ilocos Norte. Julio
Nalundasan, who defeated Ferdinand’s father Mariano in the 1935 congressional,
was assassinated by a sniper’s bullet. The recovered rifle from the UP armory was
traced to the young Marcos. He reviewed and topped the Bar Examination while in
prison, and he eloquently defended himself and received an acquittal from the
Supreme Court. In the aftermath of the 1983 assassination of Marcos Sr.’s
archpolitical rival Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., journalist Sandra Burton (1989, 37)
noted, “It was a central fact of Marcos’s political legend that it begun, as it would end
in murder.” The Nalundasan case catapulted the young Marcos Sr. into the national
stage. This episode was largely responsible for the subsequent mystique
surrounding Marcos Sr. To his adversaries, he would always be a person who was
not only capable of planning a murder but also of constructing a slick legal defense
of his innocence (Burton 1989).
The theoy of prosecution stripped of any superfluous details that Mariano
Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, brother-in-law of
Mariano, conspired to assassinate Julio Nalundasan after the electoral victory over
Mariano Marcos on Septermber 17, 1935.
Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, was a trusted and
loyal attendant and bodyguard of Quirino Lizardo; that the said Calixto Aguinaldo
was present in various conference of the Marcoses and Lizardo, in the last of which
(that held on September 20, 1935) it was decided that Nalundasan must be killed.
Ferdinand Marcos was selected as the trigger man since he was under legal
age of eighteen (18) and had expertise in shooting a pistol. Fedinand’s age at the
time of the offense was over 18, as agreed upon by the prosecution and defense,
which provides justification for reversing the lower court’s decision and removing the
penalty. The idea that Ferdinand was selected because of his minority is false
because it is reasonable to believe that both Ferdinand’s father and the interested
party were aware of this information.The story that his father, Mariano Marcos, urged
him to complete the execution is considered unusual because it goes against both
common sense and experimental psychology.
With reference to the first reason, it is even represented that Mariano Marcos,
father of Ferdinand, not only approved of the plan but even encourage his son to
carry out the unpleasant task, stating simple that he wanted to make sure the target
was hit.
Additionally, if we may believe further the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo, that
Mariano
7
Marcos was supposed to travel to laoag, Ilocos Norte, thereby leaving his son to
complete the dirty job while he, the first person most affected by the electoral triumph
of Nalundasan, was to away safe and sound.
B. Discussion of the subject matter
The Supreme Court itself convicted Marcos for an offense that may be judged
as involving moral turpitude. He and three of his relatives were found guilty of
contempt of court for filing eight separate complaints against the principal witness of
the prosecution in the murder of Julio Nalundasan, even before the conclusion of the
trial. Nalundasan was the rival of Ferdinand’s father, congressman Mariano Marcos.
The story goes that Nalundasan was killed by a sniper’s bullet on the night of
September 20, 1935, while he was brushing his teeth by the window of his home in
Batac, Ilocos Norte. This was just a few days after he defeated Mariano in the
congressional elections, and was declared the duly elected representative of Ilocos
Norte’s second district. Charged with murder were Mariano, his brother Pio, their
brother-in-law Quirino Lizardo, and Ferdinand, then an 18-year-old University of the
Philippines student and, by various accounts, a sharpshooter.
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which recounts in G.R. No.
L-47388, People of the Philippines v. Mariano Marcos et al., that the four filed eight
separate complaints against Calixto Aguinaldo, the prosecution’s principal witness.
They accused him of making false testimony against them during the preliminary
investigation on Dec. 7, 1938, and during their trial. But it turns out that they filed
those eight complaints when only Lizardo’s trial had commenced. The trial of the
three Marcoses had then not even begun. The rules of court require a judgment to
be rendered before a charge of false testimony can be filed against a witness. Ilocos
Norte’s Court of First Instance found Quirino Lizardo, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos
and Ferdinand Marcos guilty of contempt of court.
The Supreme Court said, “It is evident that the charges for false testimony
filed by the four accused above mentioned could not be decided until the main case
for murder was disposed of, since no penalty could be meted out to Calixto
Aguinaldo for his alleged false testimony without first knowing the extent of the
sentence to be imposed against Lizardo and the Marcoses (Revised Penal Code,
art. 180).”
“The latter should therefore have waited for the termination of the principal
case in the lower court before filing the charges for false testimony against Calixto
Aguinaldo. Facts considered, we are of the opinion that the action of the Marcoses
and Lizardo was calculated, or at least tended, directly or indirectly to obstruct the
administration of justice and that, therefore, the trial court properly found them guilty
of contempt,” the High Court said.
The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte had convicted Ferdinand Marcos
and
8
 Lizardo of murder and contempt. Ferdinand, then a law student, brought the
case to the Supreme Court and asked that it overturn his and Lizardo’s conviction.
Mariano and Pio, meanwhile, appealed their conviction for contempt.
Justice Jose Laurel penned the decision acquitting Marcos and Lizardo of the
murder charge. But it sustained the Ilocos Norte Court of First Instance’s decision
that all three Marcoses and Lizardo were guilty of desacato (contempt). The Court of
First Instance ordered them to pay a fine of P200 or, in case of insolvency or non-
payment, the corresponding jail time. Laurel’s decision for the Supreme Court
lowered the fine to P50. But the conviction stayed.
Hence, the first element in the AFP provision for disqualification is met. For
the contempt of court offense, after Marcos was afforded due process by the Court
of First Instance and heard on appeal by the Supreme Court, a final judgment was
reached. He was guilty.
But does a guilty for contempt of court verdict necessarily mean having
committed an act involving moral turpitude? What is moral turpitude in the first
place? Until 1940, the Supreme Court made only two rulings involving moral
turpitude. In the first case, a lawyer was convicted of abduction with consent, and the
petitioner asked that he be suspended or disbarred. The Supreme Court issued a
one-year suspension to be served after he was released from prison.

9
 CASE ANALYSIS
A. Present situation/problem
The present situation or problem appears to be a dispute over the
credibility of the prosecution's key witness, Calixto Aguinaldo, in the murder trial of
Mariano R. Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, and Quirino Lizardo. Aguinaldo's
testimony, which implicated the defendants in the murder of Julio Nalundasan, was
found to be full of contradictions and was deemed inherently improbable by the
appellate court.
A critical examination of Aguinaldo's testimony reveals inconsistencies and
discrepancies that undermine its reliability. Aguinaldo's prolonged silence following
Nalundasan's murder, coupled with his sudden decision to implicate the defendants,
raises suspicions about the authenticity of his motives. Furthermore, Aguinaldo's
personal animosity towards one of the defendants suggests potential biases that
may have influenced his testimony. These factors contribute to doubts about the
veracity of Aguinaldo's statements and their impact on the trial's outcome.
The defense successfully challenged the credibility of Aguinaldo's testimony,
pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions, and questioning his motives and
reliability as a witness. The defense also questioned the prosecution's claim that
Ferdinand Marcos, who was allegedly over eighteen years of age at the time, was
selected as the triggerman.
The appellate court's decision to reverse the lower court's judgment and
acquit Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo of the murder charge, based on the
lack of reliable evidence, represents the resolution of this problem.
However, the defendants were found guilty of contempt for filing charges of
false testimony against Aguinaldo during the ongoing murder trial. The court
imposed a fine on each defendant for this.
Very intensive investigation of the crime by the Government authorities,
particularly the Philippine Constabulary, followed, as a consequence of which an
information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte charging one
Nicasio Layaoen, a businessman of Batac, Ilocos Norte, with having committed the
murder of Nalundasan. After trial, however, Layaoen was acquitted. This acquittal
resulted in another protracted investigation and detective work by the Governmental
agencies, particularly the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice, with
a view to solving the Nalundasan murder. On December 7, 1938. or more than three
years after the death of Nalundasan, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand
Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were prosecuted for the crime of murder in the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Norte under the following information:
In its virtue, the Court finds the defendants Quirino S. Lizardo and Ferdinand
E.
10
 Marcos guilty, beyond all national doubt, of the crime of murder, with
aggravating circumstances of dwelling, but compensated by the mitigating
circumstance of provocation in the case of Quirino S. Lizardo, and for the additional
circumstance of minority in the case of Ferdinand E. Marcos, and condemns the
former to the penalty of perpetual termination, to the accessories of law, and to the
payment of a quarter of the procedural costs; and the second, to the indeterminate
sentence of ten years as a minimum to seventeen years and four months as a
maximum, to the accessory penalties of law, and to the payment of a quarter of the
procedural costs; and both to jointly and solidly compensate the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000), but without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of Insolvency; and the accused Mariano R. Marcos and Pio
Marcos are acquitted, with half of the procedural costs ex officio, and with the
cancellation of the bail they have provided for their provisional release. For the
above reasons, the Court declares the accused in the incident guilty of contempt,
and sentences each of them to pay a fine of P200, or to suffer the corresponding
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or non-payment.
B. Case with court decision
The appellate court reverses the judgment of the lower court and
acquits Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo of the charge of murder. The court
finds the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, to
be inherently improbable and full of contradictions. As a result, the court declines to
give him any credit, and without credible evidence, they find it unnecessary to
examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. The court
commends the prosecution for their industry and zeal in the case, but notes that their
failure to obtain a conviction in a previous case against Nicasio Layaoen does not
necessarily vindicate their efforts in this case. The court emphasizes that guilt must
be shown to a certain degree of moral certainty for a conviction tao be justified. With
reference to the incident of contempt, it appears that on June 10, 1939, the four
accused below filed eight separate complaints with the justice of the peace of Laoag,
Ilocos Norte, charging the principal witness for the prosecution, Calixto, Aguinaldo,
with the crime of false testimony because of alleged false declaration made by the
latter in the preliminary investigation of December 7, 1938, and during the trial of the
aforesaid four accused. When the several complaints for false testimony were filed, it
appears that Calixto Aguinaldo was under cross-examination in the separate trial
against Quirino Lizardo, and the trial of the other three accused, Mariano, Pio and
Ferdinand Marcos, had not yet commenced. The judge of the Court of First Instance
who was trying the murder case, upon motion of the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte,
ordered the provincial dismissal of the various complaints filed in the justice of the
peace court of Laoag against Calixto Aguinaldo and, thereafter, a motion was
presented asking that the Marcos and Lizardo be declared in contempt. Lizardo and
the Marcoses were ordered to show cause why they should not be punished for
contempt and, simultaneously with
11
 the judgment on the principal case for murder, Quirino Lizardo, Mariano
Marcos, Pio Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos were adjudged guilty of contempt and
sentenced each to pay a fine of two hundred pesos, with corresponding subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. In view of the result, however, arrived at in the
principal case, and considering that the inherent power to punish for contempt
should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle
(Villavicencio vs. Lukban 39 Phil., 778), and on the corrective and not on the
retaliatory idea of punishment (In re Lozano and Quevedo, 54 Phil., 801), it is our
view that this purpose is sufficiently achieved and the principle amply vindicated with
the imposition upon each of the four accused above mentioned of a fine of fifty (50)
pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. So ordered
Lizardo was sentenced to life and Ferdinand Marcos to from 10 to 17 years in
view of the fact that he was underage at the time of the crime.
The supreme court on October 22, 1940, however, acquitted Ferdinand and
his uncle of the murder charges, reversing lower court ruling, holding that evidence
of the chief witness was “polluted” and not sound basis for conviction. The court
decision was written by Justice Jose P. Laurel with Chief Justice Ramon Avanceña
and Justices Carlos Imperial, Anacieto Diaz, and Antonio Horrilleno concuring.
C. Counter measure/government action
The government's response to the Marcos and Nalundasan case commenced
with rigorous investigative procedures aimed at uncovering the truth behind Nalundasan's
murder. Law enforcement agencies, including the Philippine Constabulary and the Division
of Investigation of the Department of Justice, conducted thorough inquiries, gathering
evidence, and interrogating witnesses. From the initial stages of investigation to the trial's
conclusion, these efforts played a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of the case and
determining its outcome.

The government's response to the Marcos and Nalundasan case commenced

with rigorous investigative procedures aimed at uncovering the truth behind
Nalundasan's murder. Law enforcement agencies, including the Philippine
Constabulary and the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice,
conducted thorough inquiries, gathering evidence, and interrogating witnesses. From
the initial stages of investigation to the trial's conclusion, these efforts played a
pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of the case and determining its outcome.
Central to the Marcos and Nalundasan case were allegations of governmental
misconduct, including claims of false testimony and prosecutorial overreach. The
government's response to these allegations reflected a commitment to upholding the
rule of law and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process. Efforts to address false
testimony allegations, safeguard defendants' rights, and maintain public confidence
in the legal system were paramount throughout the case's proceedings.
12
 Very intensive investigation of the crime by the Government authorities,
particularly the Philippine Constabulary, followed, as a consequence of which an
information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte charging one
Nicasio Layaoen, a businessman of Batac, Ilocos Norte, with having committed the
murder of Nalundasan. After trial, however, Layaoen was acquitted. This acquittal
resulted in another protracted investigation and detective work by the Governmental
agencies, particularly the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice, with
a view to solving the Nalundasan murder. On December 7, 1938. or more than three
years after the death of Nalundasan, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand
Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were prosecuted for the crime of murder in the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Norte under the following information:
In view of the importance of the case and the fact that the Government asks
for the extreme penalty of death for the defendants-appellants, Ferdinand Marcos
and Quirino Lizardo, we have taken over the case on appeal with utmost caution and
searching scrutiny of the evidence presented both by the prosecution and by the
defense. As a general rule, this court will not interfere with judgment of the trial court
in passing upon the weight or credibility that should be attached to the testimony of
witnesses; but this court may determine for itself the guilt or innocence of the
defendant and may modify or reverse the conclusions of fact laid down by the trial
court if there is some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been
over- looked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.

14
PRPOSED SOLUTION/STRATEGIES
 The case of Marcos and Nalundasan was a murder case that occurred in
1935 in the Philippines. Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, and
Quirino Lizardo were charged with the murder of Julio Nalundasan, a political rival of
Mariano Marcos. The case was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Norte in 1938. To effectively resolve the case of Mariano Marcos and Julio
Nalundasan, a strategic approach would involve leveraging testimony from
witnesses, scrutinizing statements from the suspect, and analyzing any available
physical or forensic evidence from the crime scene. Witness testimony would be
carefully collected and cross-referenced to identify any inconsistencies or
discrepancies, shedding light on the sequence of events leading up to the
assassination.
Additionally, interrogating the suspect, Ferdinand Marcos, would be crucial in
uncovering potential motives or contradictions in his account of the events.
Concurrently, forensic experts would meticulously examine any remaining physical
evidence, such as ballistic reports or autopsy findings, to reconstruct the crime scene
and corroborate witness testimonies. By triangulating information from witnesses,
suspect statements, and physical evidence, a clearer picture of what transpired
could emerge, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of the case and
potentially leading to the resolution of this historical mystery.
The resolution of the case involving Mariano Marcos and Julio Nalundasan
hinges on a multifaceted strategy that integrates witness testimonies, suspect
statements, and forensic evidence. This historical investigation, stemming from the
1935 assassination of Julio Nalundasan, poses a complex challenge requiring
meticulous examination and analysis. By employing a comprehensive approach
encompassing historical research, legal scrutiny, and forensic expertise, we can
endeavor to unravel the truth behind this enduring mystery. At the heart of any
investigation lies witness testimony, offering invaluable firsthand accounts of the
events surrounding the assassination. These testimonies serve as critical pieces of
evidence, providing insights into the actions and motivations of those involved.
Conducting interviews with surviving witnesses or their descendants is essential to
gather as much information as possible, despite the passage of time. Each testimony
must be carefully analyzed, cross-referenced, and corroborated to establish a
coherent narrative of what transpired on the fateful day of the assassination.
Discrepancies or inconsistencies in witness statements may signal areas warranting
further investigation, guiding subsequent lines of inquiry. Central to the investigation
is the interrogation of the prime suspect, Ferdinand Marcos, who was accused of
orchestrating the assassination of Julio Nalundasan. Suspect statements must be
meticulously scrutinized, parsing through any potential falsehoods or
inconsistencies. Interrogators must employ skilled questioning techniques to extract
relevant information while discerning any attempts at deception.
15
 By delving into Ferdinand Marcos's background, political affiliations, and
personal vendettas, investigators can unearth potential motives behind the
assassination plot. Moreover, exploring any connections between Marcos and other
individuals or groups implicated in the crime could shed further light on the
circumstances surrounding Nalundasan's death.
Forensic analysis plays a crucial role in piecing together the events of the
assassination and corroborating witness testimonies. Despite the challenges posed
by the passage of time, modern forensic techniques offer the possibility of
uncovering new evidence from the crime scene. Ballistic reports, if available, can
provide valuable insights into the type of weapon used and the trajectory of the fatal
gunshot. Moreover, advances in forensic pathology may allow for a reexamination of
autopsy findings, potentially revealing overlooked details or indicators of foul play.
The meticulous examination of physical evidence, such as bloodstains, clothing
fibers, or any artifacts recovered from the crime scene, can yield valuable forensic
clues that help reconstruct the sequence of events leading up to Nalundasan's
death. In parallel with witness testimonies and suspect statements, historical
research serves as the foundation upon which the investigation unfolds. Delving into
archival records, newspaper articles, and historical accounts provides essential
context for understanding the political climate and power dynamics at play during the
time of the assassination. By examining the broader socio-political landscape of
1930s Philippines, investigators can identify potential motives, rivalries, and conflicts
that may have culminated in Nalundasan's assassination.
Furthermore, historical research offers insights into the personalities and
relationships of key figures involved in the case, shedding light on their potential
roles and motivations. Legal review is integral to the investigation process, ensuring
that all findings adhere to the principles of justice and due process. Legal experts
must assess the validity of any evidence obtained and evaluate its admissibility in a
court of law. Statutes of limitations and legal precedents must be considered when
determining the feasibility of pursuing criminal charges against suspects, taking into
account the historical context and complexities of the case. Additionally, legal
advisors play a crucial role in guiding investigators through the intricacies of the legal
system, ensuring that all investigative activities comply with relevant laws and
regulations. Public disclosure of findings and updates on the investigation are
essential for maintaining transparency and accountability throughout the process.
Keeping the public informed fosters trust and confidence in the investigative process
while soliciting valuable tips or leads from individuals with relevant information. Press
conferences, public statements, and media releases serve as channels for
disseminating information to the broader community, generating public awareness
and engagement with the case. Furthermore, engaging with the families of the
victims and other stakeholders ensures that their voices are heard and their
concerns addressed throughout the investigation.
16
 Reconciliation and closure are paramount goals in resolving the case of
Mariano Marcos and Julio Nalundasan. If conclusive evidence implicating Ferdinand
Marcos or others in the assassination is uncovered, efforts must be made to achieve
reconciliation with the affected parties. This may involve acknowledging past wrongs,
offering apologies or reparations, and fostering dialogue and understanding among
conflicting factions. By addressing the legacy of the assassination and its impact on
individuals and communities, steps can be taken towards healing and reconciliation,
paving the way for closure and justice to prevail.

17
CONCLUSION
 October 12, 1940, the Supreme Court scheduled the oral arguments on young
Ferdinand Marcos’s appeal on his charges over the murder of Julio Nalundasan. In
which, Ferdinand Marcos defended himself and submitted his 830 pages long
argument in May 1940. The celebrated orator Leon Maria Guerrero presented the
government case.
Presiding for the high court was its most controversial figure, Supreme Court
Associate Justice Jose P. Laurel (became the 3 rd President of the Philippines during
the Japanese-occupied Second Philippine Republic, 1943–1945; Concurrent with
government-in-exile Presidents Manuel L. Quezon 1943–1944; and Sergio Osmeña
1944–1945), who himself, at age 18, stabbed a man in fight over a girl. Convicted of
murder, Laurel defended himself successfully in an appeal before the Supreme
Court, which agreed that he had acted in self-defense. Associate Justice George A.
Malcolm, dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law who was the young
Laurel’s teacher, had been recently appointed to the Supreme Court and had urged
his colleagues to acquit the young Laurel because he knew him to be a bright
student. In the same way, Justice Laurel saw in Marcos a mirror of himself and
pleaded for his colleagues to acquit Marcos.
When the Supreme Court convened to hear the oral arguments, Laurel
listened impatiently while Leon Maria Guerrero, the famous prosecutor, summarized
the testimony of the star witness, Calixto Aguinaldo. Suddenly, Laurel interrupted the
prosecutor and announced that he simply did not believe Calixto Aguinaldo. Before
he had heard the case through, Laurel dismissed all arguments with a wave of his
hand, and the matter was closed. According to one source, Laurel went individually
to all members of the Supreme Court and pleaded emotionally for the acquittal of
young Ferdinand Marcos.
Prior to this, in December 1938, Ferdinand Marcos was prosecuted for the
murder of Julio Nalundasan. He was not the only accused from the Marcos clan; also
accused was his father, Mariano, his brother, Pio, and his brother-in-law Quirino
Lizardo. They were arrested and held without bail for the murder of Assemblyman
Julio Nalundasan in 1935, after Julio Nalundasan defeated Mariano Marcos in the
second district elections in Ilocos Norte. According to the witnesses, the four had
conspired to assassinate Nalundasan, with Ferdinand Marcos eventually pulling the
trigger.
On January 11, 1940, Quirino Lizardo and his nephew, Ferdinand E. Marcos,
son of former Assemblyman Mariano Marcos who just topped the 1939 bar
examinations*, were convicted of the murder of Julio Nalundasan, Assemblyman-
elect in 1935. Lizardo was sentenced to life imprisonment and Ferdinand Marcos, to
a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 17 years, because he was underage at the time
of the crime, while Mariano and Pio were found guilty of contempt of court and later
18
released.
 On October 22, 1940, the Supreme Court acquitted Ferdinand E. Marcos and
his uncle Quirino Lizardo of the murder of Assemblyman-elect Julio Nalundasan,
reversing a lower court decision, saying that the evidence of the chief witness was a
“polluted source” and could not serve as a sound basis for conviction. They were
“acquitted of the charge of murder and forthwith liberated from imprisonment and
discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de oficio.” The decision was
written by Justice Jose P. Laurel, with Chief Justice Ramon Avanceña and Justices
Carlos Imperial, Anacleto Diaz, and Antonio Horilleno concurring.

19
SOURCES AND REFERENCES
1. G.R. No. L-47388, The People of the Philippines vs. Mariano R. Marcos Et Al.,
Supreme Court of the Philippines, October 22, 1940
2. Manuel D. Duldulao, A Century of Philippine Legislature, Experience Philippines,
Quezon City, Vol. I, pp. 289, 302, 307
3. Philippine Magazine, Volume 37, Number 2, page 45, February 1940; Philippine
Magazine, Volume 37, Number 12, page 456, December 1940; Philippine Magazine,
Volume 32, Number 11, page 526, November 1935
4. G. R. No. 46490, Mariano Marcos, et al., vs. Roman A. Cruz, Supreme Court en
banc, January 24, 1939
5. 18th Congress, “Ferdinand E. Marcos,” Senate of the Philippines
6. PATRICK J. KILLEN, “Marcos overcame murder conviction”, Feb 2, 1986
7. Villavicencio vs. Lukban 39 Phil., 778
8. Revised Penal Code, art. 180
9. Philippine Supreme Court. Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee. A Year of
Restoration, A Time of Renewal: 1986 Annual Report of The Supreme Court. Manila,
Philippines: 1986.
10. Tate, C. Neal and Haynie, Stacia L. “Authoritarianism and the Functions of
Courts.” Law & Society Review 27.4 (1993): 707-740.
11. Bernas S.J., Fr. Joaquin G. “Sounding Board: Emergency Powers.” The
Philippine Inquirer 06 August 2007.
12. Wurfel, David. Filipino Politics: Development and Decay. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1988: 13.

20