THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RUSTICO NOBLEZALA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the fifth division of the People’s Court
finding the appellant, Rustico Noblezala, guilty of treason and sentencing him
to undergo imprisonment (reclusión temporal) for fifteen years and to
pay a fine of one thousand pesos, plus the costs.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was a member of the crew of the
motor launch “Tsumaru”, operated and used in 1943 by the Japanese army for
patrolling the waters of Dumaguete, Oriental Negros. In the middle of said year,
the appellant reported to his commander the presence of a sailboat that was
heading for Cebu; whereupon the Japanese officer in charge of the launch (then
docked at the wharf in Dumaguete), together with the appellant and other members
of the crew, boarded the same and pursued the sailboat which, after being
captured, was taken ashore. While the eleven passengers of the sailboat were
being questioned in the Japanese headquarters located at the Guy Hall of
Silliman University, the appellant made a search of and found in said watercraft
a sheet of paper purporting to be a “Usaffe” pass, which was turned over by the
appellant to the Japanese and which, it is alleged, caused the Japanese to
liquidate said eleven passengers.

The Solicitor General’s brief concedes “the point of the defense that only
Narciso Gipres testified as to the alleged tipping of the Japanese commander of
the ‘Tsumaru’ of the presence of the sailboat in the open sea” and that “the
lone testimony of Cipres is not sufficient to prove this act as an overt act of
treason.” Indeed, the Solicitor General contents himself in arguing that “the
main charge against the appellant in this case lies in his having reported to
the Japanese authorities that the sailboat was sailing under a ‘Usaffe’ Pass,
considering that the enemy was not cognizant of that fact.”

We have examined the record carefully and come to the conclusion that, under
the very evidence for the prosecution, the appellant is entitled to the benefit
of a reasonable doubt. Thus, we find that the theory of the Government is
contradicted on at least two material details. (1) While the appellant is said
to have informed the Japanese commander about the presence of the sailboat in
question, prosecution witness Benedicto Piñero testified that it was one Severo
Lara who notified the Japanese garrison of the movement of the sailboat,
probably upon order of the captain of the launch. (2) While prosecution
witnesses Narciso Cipres and Jesus Palencia claimed that, upon finding a piece
of paper, the appellant shouted in their and other’s presence that it was a
“Usaffe” pass before taking it to the garrison, the other prosecution witness
Benedicto Pifiero testified that the appellant did not say anything about the
contents of the paper and that it was only after he had delivered it to the
Japanese that he gave the information that the same was a “Usaffe” pass.

In addition, we cannot help suspecting that the witnesses for the prosecution
exaggerated somewhat when two of them wanted us to believe that the appellant
shouted upon discovering the alleged “Usaffe” pass and when all three of them
pictured themselves as calm ringside spectators of the incident in question and
even of the burial at midnight of one of the eleven passengers liquidated by the
Japanese. There was really no sense for the appellant to publicly broadcast the
finding of the alleged “Usaffe” pass, unless he was insane enough at least to
engender the hatred of his friends and countrymen; and there is no showing that
the appellant was losing his mind or that he would thus act for the mere sake of
boasting. And it was quite unnatural that the aforesaid witnesses would enjoy
the ceremonies that allegedly resulted in the killing of the eleven passengers
of the sailboat, absolutely unmolested or unnoticed, unless they had friendly
relations with the Japanese. It is of common knowledge that no Filipino ever
ventured to fool around a place wherein the Japanese military authorities
conducted a liquidating investigation, for obvious reasons. There is no pretense
that said witnesses were interested in the alleged incident as members or in
behalf of the underground movement, or in order to become witnesses in
appellant’s prosecution for treason.

To the foregoing considerations, it may be added that there is no proof
whatsoever tending to establish the alleged killing of the eleven passengers or
any of them, much less to specify the author or authors thereof. In other words,
none of the witnesses for the prosecution was able to testify that he saw any of
said passengers in the act of being killed on the occasion in question.

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

Feria, Pablo,
Perfecto, Bengzon, and Tuason JJ., concur.