1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; INTENTION lS DETERMINED BY COMMON EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION OF MANKIND. — It is hard to believe that the appellant, who had rendered splendid service in Bataan, and fresh from the risks and hardships that were his in Capas, would readily, much less voluntarily, have allowed himself to become a willing tool of his former war enemies. It is a matter of public notoriety that the Filipino soldiers released in Capas endeavored to enter in the government service in any capacity with a view solely to escaping the possibility of being drafted into the Japanese army or being suspected as hostile to the military occupants.

2. ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; ADMISSION AND AVOIDANCE. — We are impressed by the frankness of the appellant in admitting his participation in the raids alleged in the information, an admission which forces us to accept his explanation as to the nature and extent of such participation. The fact that all of those arrested on the occasions in question were released immediately two or three days after he made his investigations is persuasive enough to show that the appellant had undoubtedly not intended to betray his country and fellow citizens. As there is also no showing that the appellant had previous knowledge of the guerrilla connection of those whose relatives were arrested and detained it is not safe to assume that the raids charged in the information were made at his initiative or instigation. We rather think that appellant’s role in the incidents complained of served to frustrate the barbarous ways of the Japanese if the latter were allowed to run the whole show.

3. ID.; ID.; APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO JOIN THE GUERRILLAS. — "Those who refused to cooperate, in the face of danger, were patriotic citizens; but it does not follow that the faint-heart, who gave in, were traitors." (People v. Godinez, L-895, December 31, 1947, 45 Off. Gaz., 2524. 1)

This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court convicting the appellant of treason and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two thousand pesos, plus the costs.

The information imputed to the appellant eigtheen counts, but the People’s Court found him guilty of only five charges, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The herein accused, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, sometime in the year 1943, wilfully and treasonably accepted the position of second in command of the 3d Leyte Company at Dulag, Leyte, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, of the Japanese-sponsored Bureau of Constabulary, and discharged the duties of the said office until the Americans returned.

"12. The herein accused, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, sometime on or about the 18th of January, 1944, wilfully and treasonably led a patrol to sitio Masonting, Malitbog, Leyte, Philippines, to arrest Simplicio Ajero alias Dodong, an ex-USAFFE soldier, and on which occasion Dodong Ajero being away, and said accused took and carried away, with intent of gain, jewels, such as earrings, medal, and shoes, polo shirts and trousers belonging to the family, and likewise brought the mother and younger brother of Dodong Ajero to the municipal jail for investigation and held them as prisoners.

"13. The herein accused, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, sometime on or about January 19, 1944, wilfully and treasonably led a patrol of soldiers to Concepcion, Dulag, Leyte, Philippines, in order to arrest men suspected as guerrillas, and on which occasion eight men were arrested and brought to the military police headquarters for investigation.

"14. The herein accused, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, sometime on or about January 22, 1944, wilfully and treasonably led a patrol to Concepcion, Malitbog, Leyte, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, to arrest Jose Lastima, another USAFFE soldier, and whose mother and brother were also taken to the MP headquarters for investigation when the said Lastima was not found in his house.

15. The herein accused, with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, on or about January 22, 1944, wilfully and treasonably led a patrol of Japanese military police and Constabulary soldiers to a barrio in Malitbog, Leyte, Philippines, in order to arrest Jose Lastima whom they failed to arrest on a previous occasion, and on which occasion Jose Lastima being away still at the time, the whole family of Jose Lastima was taken and kept as hostages in the Japanese military garrison."cralaw virtua1aw library

With regard to count 12, the appellant testified that he and five of his Constabulary men went with fifteen Japanese soldiers and two Japanese interpreters, led by a spy named Lucas, to the barrio of Masonting, Malitbog, Leyte, wherein the appellant was ordered by the Japanese to have his men surround the house of Melania Ajero; that the Japanese officer and an interpreter went up the house; that he neither broke any trunk and took away therefrom jewelries and clothes nor arrested Melania Ajero and her son Rodrigo Anduyo; that the latter were arrested and detained by the Japanese; that upon order of the Japanese, the appellant investigated Melania and Rodrigo Anduyo. Appellant’s testimony was corroborated in the main by Domingo Cruz and Bibiano Daga.

As to count 13, the appellant, corroborated in the main by Domingo Cruz and Bibiano Daga, testified that the raid made on January 19, 1944, in barrio Concepcion, Malitbog, Leyte, was not led by him but by a Japanese; that he and his Constabulary men went with the Japanese without knowing the latter’s purpose, although the appellant took charge of his men so that they would not commit any abuse; that he asked his men to surround the house of Anastacio de la Cruz upon order of the Japanese who, likewise, were the ones who arrested and jailed eight persons.

As to count 14, the appellant testified that on January 22, 1944, he was ordered by the Japanese to go with their patrol and to surround the house of Andrea Penisilda in barrio Binit I, from which the Japanese took Andrea and her son Hermogenes Lastima; that he neither hit Andrea on the eyes nor went up her house and took her money from her trunk; that he did not suspend Hermogenes in mid-air; that on the following day, he investigated Hermogenes as to the whereabouts of his brother Jose, as ordered by the Japanese; that he told the Japanese that Hermogenes had not seen his brother for a long time and had nothing to do with his case, so that the Japanese released Hermogenes; that his men delivered food to Andrea and Hermogenes secretly; that he did not maltreat them. Domingo Cruz corroborated substantially appellant’s testimony.

The attorneys for the appellant argue that only one witness was presented to prove the charge in count 15; and the prosecution admits this, with the qualification, however, that "while the arrest of Leona Cadayuna and her father by appellant has been proven by only one witness — Leona Cadayuna herself — because her father died long before the trial (p. 8, t. s. n.) , their incarceration and investigation by appellant has been demonstrated by the testimonies of Leona, Andrea Penisilda and Hermogenes Lastima (pp. 6, 15, 19, 20, t. s. n.) ."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have weighed carefully the evidence for both sides and have come to the conclusion that the appellant has not been proved guilty of treason beyond a reasonable doubt. At the outset, we have the uncontroverted facts that the appellant was an officer of the Philippine Army even before the outbreak of the war in 1941, and he was one of those who made a last stand in Bataan, and for his splendid services he was decorated with a Purple Heart medal; that after the surrender, he was a participant in the "Death March" ; that he was one of those imprisoned in the Capas Concentration Camp; that he was never officially released as a prisoner of war, since, after his concentration in Capas, he was made by the Japanese to undergo training in the Constabulary barracks in Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila, after which he was sent to the Constabulary unit in Leyte; that there were many Japanese soldiers in his station.

It is hard to believe that the appellant, who had rendered splendid service in Bataan, and fresh from the risks and hardships that were his in Capas, would readily, much less voluntarily, have allowed himself to become a willing tool of his former war enemies. Upon the other hand, we are inclined to think that he had no choice in the matter. Indeed, we know as a matter of public notoriety that the Filipino soldiers released in Capas endeavored to enter in the government service in any capacity with a view solely to escaping the possibility of being drafted into the Japanese army or being suspected as hostile to the military occupants. In this case there is of course no proof that the Bureau of Constabulary during the Japanese occupation either was a part of the Japanese army or even participated in military operations of the Japanese.

We are impressed by the frankness of the appellant in admitting his participation in the raids alleged in the information, an admission which forces us to accept his explanation as to the nature and extent of such participation. The fact that all of those arrested on the occasions in question were released immediately two or three days after he made his investigations is persuasive enough to show that the appellant had undoubtedly not intended to betray his country and fellow citizens. As there is also no showing that the appellant had previous knowledge of the guerrilla connection of those whose relatives were arrested and detained, it is not safe to assume that the raids charged in the information were made at his initiative or instigation. We rather think that appellant’s role in the incidents complained of served to frustrate the barbarous ways of the Japanese if the latter were allowed to run the whole show.

The prosecution directs attention to the fact that, as proof of appellant’s treasonable intent, he did not join the guerrillas notwithstanding the circumstance that he had a chance to do so. Aside from the testimony of the appellant that the leader of the guerrilla band (Lt. Bautista) instructed him and some of his men to return to town — after the appellant had expressed his desire to remain with said band on one occasion — we may state that, as well observed by Mr. Justice Bengzon, in People v. Godinez L-895, December 31, 1947, 45 Off. Gaz., 2524 1 "those who refused to cooperate, in the face of danger, were patriotic citizens; but it does not follow that the faint-heart, who gave in, were traitors."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the view thus taken of the case, it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the contention of counsel for the appellant that count 15 was not proved by two witnesses and that, as to count 1, "No one of the witnesses for the prosecution, . . . declared that the appellant was second in command of the 3d Leyte Company of the Bureau of Constabulary stationed at Dulag, Leyte."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Briones and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

Perfecto, J., concurs in the result.



PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Disiento. En mi opinion, el acusado es culpable del delito de traicion.

En cuanto al cargo No. 12, esta probado que en Enero 18 de 1944, el acusado y various soldados japoneses, todos armados, fueron a la casa de Melania Ajero, madre de Dodong, conocido guerrilla bajo el mando de Miranda. Al encontrar algunas camisas en el registro, el acusado exclamo: "Estas camisas son de Dodong Ajero." Y se apodero de 5 pantalones, 6 camisas, 2 aretes y una gargantilla. Despues de investigar a la pobre madre de Dodong y porque no habia obtenido de ella contestacion satisfactoria, la llevo con sus compañeros japoneses al pueblo en donde estuvo arrestada por cinco dias en el cuartel del Kempei Tai. Durante ese tiempo el acusado iba siempre uniformado como teniente de la constabularia. Porfiria, Fortunato y Rodrigo, hermanos de Dodong, fueron tambien investigados. Pero por no se sabe que razones, el acusado dejo libres a Porfiria y Fortunato, y arresto a Rodrigo juntamente con su madre Melania. Creyendo tal vez que Rodrigo podria ayudar en la compaña de pacificacion, le dio libertad despues de estar arrestado por tres dias con la condicion de que buscase a su hermano Moises que tambien era guerillero. A los tres dias, Rodrigo volvio al cuartel para dar cuenta de que no le encontro. El acusado le solto otra vez con instrucciones de buscarle.

Si el acusado ejecuto los actos relatados solamente para contentar a sus "amos,"