THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GAUDENCIO ROBLE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Charged with treason on three counts, the defendant pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to death by the First Division of the People’s Court
sitting in Tacloban, Leyte, She correctness of the penalty is the sole question
put in issue in this appeal.

The information alleges:

“1. On or about March 20, 1944, in the municipality of
Dalaguete, province of Cebu Philippines, with the purpose of giving and with the
intent to give aid and confort to the enemy and her military forces said accused
being a member of the Philippine Constabulary did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably lead, guide and accompany 10 other
members of the pro-Japanese constabulary all armed like the accused, and did
apprehend and arrest Paulino Osorio for having helped the guerrillas and of
being the father of two guerrilla men; that the herein accused after maltreating
said Paulino Osorio did detain him the municipal jail of Dalaguete; that in the
same date the accused and his companions did apprehend Melchor Campomanes and 7
other persons who were also tortured for being guerrillas or guerrilla
supporters and sympathizers and the accused herein with his firearm did shoot
Melchor Campomanes, killing him instantly;

“2. Sometime during the month of March, 1944, in the
municipality of Dalaguete, province of Cebu, Philippines, with the purpose of
giving and with the intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy and her military
forces said accused being a soldier of the Philippine Constabulary did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably lead, guide and
accompany a patrol of 13 constabulary soldiers and did arrest and apprehend
Fortunato Belandres, Antolin Rodriguez, Zoilo Verano and Constancio Linares for
being guerrillas and/or guerrilla supporters; that said accused did tie and
torture the aforesaid persons and cut a portion of their ears, the tortures
being so severe especially with respect to Antolin Rodriguez who effectively
died as a result of said tortures administered by the accused.

“3. On or about May 18, 1944, in Cebu City, Philippines, with
the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy
and her military forces, said accused being a soldier of the Philippine
Constabulary did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
treasonably accompany a group of Constabulary soldiers, all armed, to Mambaling
and other parts of Cebu City and did apprehend Eleuterio Padilla, a former
USAFFE soldier, for being a guerrilla, and there herein accused and his
companions did tie and torture said Eleuterio Padilla, detain him at the
Constabulary Headquarters for several days, after which he was taken out and
mercilessly killed on May 26, 1944, by said accused.”

The court held that the facts alleged in the information is a
complex crime of treason with murders, with the result that the penalty provided
for the most serious offense was to be imposed on its maximum degree. Viewing
the case from the standpoint of modifying circumstances, the court believed that
the same result obtained. It opined that the killings were murders qualified by
treachery and aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, superior
strength, cruelty, and an armed band.

We think this is error. The tortures and murders set forth in
the information are merged in and formed part of treason. They were in this case
the overt acts which, besides traitorous intention, supplied a vital ingredient
in the crime. Emotional or intellectual attachment and sympathy with the foe
unaccompanied by the giving of aid and comfort is not treason. The defendant
would not be guilty of treason if he had not committed the atrocities in
question.

On the question of the applicability of the aggravating
circumstances which impelled the court, against its sentiments, to give the
defendant the extreme penalty, we only have to refer to People vs. Racaza, (82
Phil., 623), in which this question was discussed and decided. There we
said:

“The trial court found the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, superior strength, treachery and employment of means for adding
ignominy to the natural effects of the crime.

“The first three circumstances are, by their nature, inherent
in the offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty.
Adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is, in many cases, as
in this, a long, continued process requiring, for the successful consummation of
the traitor’s purpose, fixed, reflective and persistent determination and
planning.

“So are superior strength and treachery included in the crime
of treason. Treachery is merged in superior strength; and to overcome the
opposition and wipe out resistance movements, which was Racaza’s purpose in
collaborating with the enemy, the use of a large force and equipment was
necessary. The enemy to whom the accused adhered was itself the personification
of brute, superior force, and it was this superior force which enabled him to
overrun the country and for a time subdue its inhabitants by his brutal rule.
The law does not expect the enemy and its adherents to meet their foes only on
even terms according to the romantic traditions of chivalry.

“But the law does abhor inhumanity and the abuse of strength to
commit acts unnecessary to the commission of treason. There is no
incompatability between treason and decent, human treatment of prisoners. Rapes,
wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties are condemned and
the perpetration of these will be regarded as aggravating circumstances of
ignominy and of deliberately augmenting unnecessary wrongs to the main criminal
objective under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
The atrocities above mentioned, of which the appellant is beyond doubt guilty,
fall within the terms of the above paragraphs.

“For the very reason that premeditation, treachery and use of
superior strength are absorbed in treason characterized by killings, the
killings themsilves and other accompanying crimes should be taken into
consideration for measuring the degree and gravity of criminal responsibility
irrespective of the manner in which they were committed. Were not this the rule,
treason, the highest crime known to law, would confer on its perpetrators
advantages that are denied simple murderers. To avoid such incongruity and
injustice, the penalty in treason will be adapted, within the range provided in
the Revised Penal Code, to the danger and harm to which the culprit has exposed
his country and his people and to the wrongs and injuries that resulted from his
deeds. The letter and pervading spirit of the Revised Penal Code adjust
penalties to the perversity of the mind that conceived and carried the crime
into execution. Where the system of graduating penalties by the prescribed
standards is inapplicaiile, as in the case of homicides connected with treason,
the method of analogies to fit the punishment with the enormity of the offense
may be summoned to the service of justice and consistency and in furtherance of
the law’s aims.”

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we
believe that the appellant’s spontaneous plea of guilty is sufficient to entitle
him to a penalty below the maximum. The appealed decision is therefore modified
and the sentence reduced to reclusion perpetua with the legal accessories
and costs.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon,
Briones, and Reyes, JJ., concur.