THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appellant was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of P20,000
and the costs on a plea of guilty to the crime of treason premised on various
counts.

The original information filed on January 22, 1946, charged
appellant of treason on 22 counts. On February 4, 1946, an amended information,
covering only 20 counts was filed and duly admitted. The trial was set for
February 7, 1946. On said date, count 3 of the amended information was further
amended and, upon arraignment, appellant entered his plea of not guilty, and, by
agreement of the parties, hearing was set for the following day, February 8,
1946.

As finally amended, the information reads as follows:

“The undersigned Special prosecutor accuses Mariano T. Jaucian
of the crime of treason under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code committed as
follows:

“That at the times hereinafter mentioned, at the places
hereafter stated, and within the jurisdiction of this court, while both the
United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were in a state of war
against their common enemy, the Empire of Japan, said accused, not being a
foreigner but a Filipino citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation of said duty of allegiance, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and traitorously adhere to the
aforesaid enemy, giving her and her armed forces aid and comfort in the
following manner, to wit:

“(1) In or about the period of from April 1942 to September
1942, in Cebu, Philippines, and its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the
said accused did then and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and
treasonably join the Japanese Kempei Tai Intelligence Section acting as an agent
and a spy and identifying suspected guerrillas and causing their torture and
killing by the Japanese;

“(2) In or about the period from July 1943 to October 1944, in
Carcar, Cebu, and its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused
did then and therevwilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably, as a
Constabulary Officer heading the 5th Cebu Co., engage and order the men under
him to engage in the apprehension, torture and killing of guerrillas and
guerrilla suspects and in securing information about guerrillas and turning the
same to the enemy;

“(3) In the same period mentioned in Count 2, in Carcar, Cebu,
and its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, in pursuance of the campaign
against guerrillas, the said accused did then and there wilfully, feloniously,
unlawfully and treasonably confine various persons, names unknown, and several
women, among these being Paulina Canaya and Annie Alcoseba, as hostages for
guerrillas, torturing them during their confinement;

“(4) In or about 9 March 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably cause the beating to death of
Florencio Lebajo for guerrilla activities;

“(5) In or about 13 March 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the herein accused, together with Manuel
Hernandez, Ramon Vilo, and others, did then and there wilfully, feloniously,
unlawfully and treasonably apprehend and arrest Paulino Canadalles, brought him
to a place 3 km. away, which was being burned and looted by Japanese soldiers
and Constabulary members, where he was forced to bring the loot to Carcar, and
subsequently did bring Canadalles to Carcar where he was almost drowned in the
swimming pool and beaten by the accused and others for guerrilla activities;

“(6) In or about 15 March 1944, in Nepo, municipality of
Carcar, Province of Cebu, and its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the
said accused together with Manuel Hernandez, several PC’s and 4 Japanese
soldiers, did then and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably
raid the house of Francisco Caballos, confiscating and appropriating to
themselves P430 Philippine currency, and afterwards beating and slashing with a
bayonet the forehead of Francisco Caballos;

“(7) In or about 14 March 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused and his companions,
numbering 30 in all, did then and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and
treasonably rob Joaquin Nacua of cash amounting to about P1,955, jewelry and
other foodstuffs and did cause his death;

“(8) In or about 18 March 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused, and several others,
did then and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably arrest
Vicente Solon and having him tortured by Mori Cui, subsequently transferring
Vicente Solon to Dungcan, Cebu, where he was bayoneted to death, all this being
done upon the instigation and order of the accused;

“(9) In or about March 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its environs,
in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably behead or cause to be beheaded Victorio
Florido and his two sons, and did cause the burning of the house of said
Victorio Florido for alleged guerrilla activities;

“(10) In or about 18 March 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably torture and/or cause the
torture of one Meliton Yburan upon suspicion of the latter’s knowledge of the
whereabouts of Lt. Varga, a guerrilla suspect;

“(11) In or about 13 April 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably shoot and kill and/or did
cause the shooting and killing of Mrs. Pedro Bailoa for guerrilla
activities;

“(12) In or about 14 April 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and its
environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably kill and/or cause the killing
of Armando Satori for guerrilla activities;

“(13) In or about 18 April 1944, in Cebu, and its environs, in
conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably arrest and torture Lucio Gacho for
guerrilla activities;

“(14) In or about the first week of March 1944, in Cebu, and
its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably torture Cecilio Alegarbes and
Restituto Caballero for guerrilla activities;

“(15) In or about the last week of January 1944, in Carcar,
Cebu, and its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then
and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably arrest and torture
Uy Puat, Igapito Barroguia and Marcelino Alegrado, robbing the latter besides of
his cloth and his money amounting to P90, for guerrilla activities;

“(16) In or about December 1944, in Cebu, and its environs, in
conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably arrest and torture Lt. Vicente Varga for
guerrilla activities;

“(17) At various times in the year 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, and
its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably cause the arrest and torture
of guerrillas—Sergio Alcover, a USFIP soldier named Paterno, Maximo Bondibas,
Little Silva, Cristina Solo (these two not being heard from since their arrest),
Flavio Varga, Tomas Alcoseba, Gervacio L. Anchingco, and Ben Abellonasa, and
others unknown;

“(18) In or about the period of from August to December 1943,
in Carcar and Cebu, and their environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably
commandeer tires, typewriters and other war materials from civilians and did
sell the same to the enemy with intent to, as he did, appropriate the proceeds
for himself;

“(19) In or about the period of from October 1944 to March
1945, in Cebu, and its environs, in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused
did then and there wilfully, feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably resume his
campaign against guerrillas and other resistance units, and did act as spy and
informer of the enemy (and did fight side by side with the enemy against the
American raiding and landing forces);

“(20) In or about 9 February 1945, in Cebu, and its environs,
in conspiracy with the enemy, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
feloniously, unlawfully and treasonably cause the arrest and killing of Lt.
Patrocinio Reyes for guerrilla activities.

“In the commission of this crime concurred the aggravating
circumstances of treachery, cruelty, abuse of power, and by a band.

“Contrary to law.

(Sgd.) “MAGNO S. GATMAITAN
Special
prosecutor“

On February 8, 1946, the day set for the hearing appellant
withdrew his plea of not guilty to substitute it with a plea of guilty to all
the counts in the amended information, except to four of them, and on the
condition that a certain phrase from one of the remaining,counts be eliminated.
The prosecution amended the information by eliminating the phrase objected to in
.count 19 and discarded counts 13, 17, 18 and 20, to which appellant would not
plead guilty. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded guilty to the remaining counts
in the amended information, except count 9 to which he entered a plea, of not
guilty, and trial of the case on said count was set for hearing on February 11,
1946, when the prosecution for want of evidence submitted the case without
proving said count 9.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in proceeding to
a consideration of the case when it was clear that, under the circumstances
obtaining at the time of his arraignment, appellant could not be granted a fair
hearing, and the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to death, on his plea
of guilty, without further investigation as to the propriety or impropriety of
the imposition of said penalty.

Appellant narrated the circumstances under which he pleaded
guilty in his affidavit attached to a motion for new trial, where he states the
following:

“I, Mariano T. Jaucian, of legal age, Filipino citizen,
presently interned at the provincial jail, Cebu City, Cebu, after being duly
sworn, depose and say:

“That on the 28th of January 1946, one of the guards in the
provincial jail, City of Cebu, Cebu, called for me inside the jail and told me
to sign a summons from the People’s Court requiring my appearance before the
aforementioned Court, for trial an the 4th of February 1946 for the crime of
treason, in Criminal Case No. 204. On the morning of February 4th 1946, fifteen
other political detainees and myself were then brought to the Court. On that
very morning all of us were arraigned and all of us pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the
charge. On the very same day, after my arraignment and plea of ‘not guilty’ the
Court set the following cases for hearing:

“February 5th—Antonio Racaza Racaza’s case
“February
6th—Marcelo Laborte’s case
“February 7th—the cases against me and Manuel
Hernandez
“February 8th—Cocopate Adlawan’s case

“On the morning of February 5, 1946, Antonio Racaza Racaza was
brought to the Court for trial and when he was returned to the jail that same
day, his face was all swollen and was almost unrecognizable in view of the
injuries he had received from the mob at the provincial capitol, City of Cebu,
where the People’s Court is situated. I asked how it was possible for him to
have been mobbed when he was guarded, and he answered that his guards, far from
being concerned about his safety, were the ones who instigated the mob.

“Racaza’s trial was not finished on February 5th. On February
6th, he was taken back to the Court with Marcelo Laborte, Francisco Concepcion,
Dionisio Agoncillo and Mateo Perez, all political detainees. When they were
brought back to jail that day, there were all bleeding from injuries they had
suffered from the mob. In the afternoon the whole court personnel arrived in the
provincial jail and held court session there. Antonio Racaza Racaza’s trial was
continued in spite of the fact that he was still groggy because of the physical
injuries inflicted on him by the mob. When he could no longer endure the pain
caused by his injuries from the mob on two consecutive days, he called the
attention of the judges to his physical condition and informed them to stop the
trial because he would change his plea from ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty.’

“On February 7th, Manuel Hernandez and I were brought to the
court, escorted by ten Filipino military police under one officer. While we were
on our way to court, our hands were not tied. Then we arrived in Court it was
overcrowded with people. I saw in the courtroom three American officers. A few
minutes after our arrival the judges entered the courtroom, and the clerk of
court ordered silence, as it was very noisy. For a while the crowd kept silent.
Then the court begun the session. The clerk of court approached me and read the
information to me and then asked me what my plea was, and I answered him ‘not
guilty’. After this he went to Manuel Hernandez and read to him the information
filed against him, and after he finished, reading, he asked Hernandez for his
plea and Hernandez answered ‘not guilty.’ After this the crowd became very noisy
and rushed inside the court-room, throwing on us stones, hitting me and
Hernandez several times. The judges felt powerless and they did nothing to
suppress the mob. Both of them, Judges Saguin and Borromeo, just went outside
their chambers and did not return anymore. Luckily the three American officers
intervened for us at the risk of being hit by the stones thro van at us by the
mob. I observed also that many people inside the court room were carrying
hunting knifes, round objects wrapped in handkerchiefs, iron bars wrapped in
newspaper with their points Obtruding, chicken blade placed in between the
fingers. I observed also that our Filipino MP guards aid nothing to these
persons carrying illegal weapons inside the court room.

“Instead two MPs went to us and tied our hands at the back very
tightly with the sling of their carbines. With our hands tied, it became more
difficult for us to evade the stones hurled at us. The American officers sensing
that danger was imminent, took charge of us (Hernandez and myself). They brought
us down the capitol building, to the truck that took us back to the provincial
jail. I did not call for a doctor to attend to my injuries. While on the truck
on our way to the jail, one of the MPC guard who vras with us on the truck, hit
me at my back with the point of his carbine, and told me in harsh words that if
I would not plead guilty the next time they would leave me to the mercy of the
mob; and if I would not get hurt from the mob, they themselves would be the ones
to do me harm on the pretext that I attempted to escape.

“As a consequence of the disturbances, eight of the ten benches
inside the court-room were broken.

“The following morning February 8, 1946, Cocopate Adlawan and
myself were brought back to the court. On our way, the guard who was sitting
behind me, reminded me of his threats. When we arrived in the Court room, the
crowd was the same and was very noisy. However, there were no more American
officers inside the court room. Noting the absence of the U.S.A. officers, who
were the only ones who could protect us from our MPC guard and the hostile
crowd, I called my attorney, Mr. Honorato Hermossissima and informed him of my
decision to change my plea from ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’. He told me then to
wait as he would talk with prosecutor Gatmaitan. After my attorney’s conference
with the prosecutor, he came back to me, and informed me that five of the
charges against me were cancelled. I told him that I was going to plead guilty,
not because I was guilty but because of the circumstances, of fear of being
mobbed or lynched by the hostile crowd who frequented the court during trials.
The Judges seemed to be disinterested in our safety, inasmuch as day after day
we were assaulted by the mob in their presence, and sometimes inside the very
court-room, and they did nothing to stop it. Antonio Racaza Racaza, Francisco
Concepcion, Marcelo Laborte, Dionisio Agoncillo, Mateo Perez, Manuel Hernandez
and myself were all injured. As a proof of my innocence, I told my lawyer I
would not plead guilty to one of those grave charges against me, in count No.
9.

“The court then begun with the session with my lawyer informing
the judge with my change of plea of from ‘not guilty’ to that of ‘guilty’,
except as to charge No. 9. The prosecutor then asked the Hon. Court to set
the trial on charge No. 9 for the 11th of February. After I entered a plea of
‘guilty’, the mob was pacified, and our guards.began to smile on me then. The
fury of the mob was centered on my companion Cocopate Adlawan who at first did
not plead guilty. When taken back to the court for trial, he also changed his
plea of ‘not guilty’ to ‘guilty’ for the same reasons.

“On the 11th of February I was then taken to court together
with Ignacio Calinawa, another political detainee, scheduled to be tried on that
day also. Just before the court session begun, the attorney de oficio,
Mrs. Arnoco, assigned by the court to defend Calinawa in his case, approached
him and asked him whether he was Ignacio Calinawa. My companion answered her in
the affirmative. And the next question was whether he had some money. Calinawa
answered her in the negative, with an explanation that they were very poor, and
he offered his services to his attorney if she would save him from his
predicament. Instead his lawyer began to convince his client to plead guilty, as
his was a hopeless case, according to her, inspite of the defendant’s insistence
that he was innocent of the charge.

“The judges then entered the court, and the session begun.
Special prosecutor Attorney Gatmaitan informed the court that he was withdrawing
Count No. 9 as a charge against me, as he himself together with Special
prosecutor Doiciano Lambo went to Carcar, Cebu where the alleged crime was
committed and they could not find witnesses to testify before the court, that
the widow was demented and one of the sons was still very young, and that one of
the principal witnesses could not be located. For these reasons, he presented a
motion for dismissal of the case. Yet, in the decision of the court, it appears
that I am the author of the crime specified in Count 9, inspite of the fact that
Special prosecutor Gaitmaitan himself was the one who filed the motion before
the court withdrawing said charge No. 9.

“Further affiant sayeth not.

(Sgd.) “MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of July,
1946.

(Sgd.) “FRANCISCO E. F. REMOTIGUE
“Notary
Public
“Until 31 December 1946“

Appellant’s version is corroborated by the affidavit signed by
Dionisio Agoncillo, Francisco Concepcion, Antonio Racaza and Mateo Perez which
reads:

“We, Dionisio Agoncillo, Francisco Concepcion, Antonio Racaza
Racaza, Mateo Perez, all of legal age, Filipino citizens, political detainees,
presently interned at the Cebu provincial jail, Cebu City, Philippines, after
having duly sworn to in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and say:

“That in the morning of February 6, 1946, we, Dionisio
Agoncillo, Francisco Concepcion, Antonio Racaza Racaza, Mateo Perez and Marcelo
Laborte, were summoned to appear before the People’s Court at the Cebu
provincial capitol building, Cebu City, Philippines. We were escorted by (8)
city policemen. Upon our arrival at the People’s Court, we, Dionisio Agoncillo,
Francisco Concepcion and Mateo Perez, were taken to the office of prosecutor
Lambo; while there, we were told by prosecutor Larnbo to testify against Marcelo
Laborte. We refused on the ground that we don’t know anything about the
activities of said Marcelo Laborte; upon our refusal prosecutor Lambo
threateningly, told us that if we didn’t testify in the prosecution against the
said defendant, Marcelo Laborte, we would be mobbed by the civilians outside.
These threatening words were uttered in our presence and in the presence of the
City Police.

“After the trial of Antonio Racaza was over, we were all
handcuffed, and on our way down the provincial capitol building, the city Police
told the civilians that they could do anything against us as long as they would
not go to the extent of killing us. The city Police were the first ones to
manhandle us, and later the civilians followed. The civilians would not have
manhandled us had they not been instigated by no other than the agent of our
safety, and also by some hunters of the People’s Court. As a result, all of us
received serious physical injuries, as follows:

“Dionisio Agoncillo was hit several times on his head, face,
and on his back with a certain hard object wrapped with a handkerchief, which he
presumed to be an iron bar and stones; causing physical injuries such as incised
wound of about an inch long on his head, bruises and contussions on his face,
and at his back; and caused him to remain on bed for three weeks.

“Francisco Concepcion was hit several times on his head, face,
and on his back with stones, fists, and a certain hard object wrapped with a
handkerchief, and clubs; causing serious physical injuries, such ass incised
rounds about an inch long on his head, swollen right eye, bruises and
contussions on his face, and bodily pains at his back which caused internal
hemorrhage—vomited blood several times; and caused him to remain on bed for two
months.

“Antonio Racaza was hit several times on his head, face and on
his back with a certain hard object wrapped with a handkerchief, stones, clubs,
and barefists; causing serious physical injuries, such as; Incised wound about
an inch and a half long on his head, both eyes blackened, incised wound about an
inch on his upper lip, dislocated jaw bone, bruises and contussions at his back;
and caused him to remain on bed for one month and fifteen days.

“Mateo Perez was hit several times on his head, face, and on
his back with stones, clubs and bare fists; causing serious physical injuries,
such as: Bruises end contussions on his head and face and bodily pains at his
back; and caused him to remain on bed for two weeks.

“Upon our arrival at the provincial jail, the provincial
warden, Mr. Paulo Almendras, gave due interest to the injuries inflicted on us,
and he himself had made all means to secure a doctor and medicines for our
treatment; for our custodians, instead of bringing us to a hospital for
treatment, seemed not to give us any interest. After the treatment given us by
ihe doctor, we requested that we be given medical certificate but the doctor
refused for obvious reasons.

“In view of the maltreatments and physical injuries inflicted
on us right in the presence of the peace officers, and within the premises of
the court—within sight of the Judges, which were interested by our government to
give us justice, and the attitude of the Judges who seemed to be disinterested;
and the fear of being mobbed or lynched by the hostile crowd which were
instigated and tolerated by no other than the peace officers, makes the majority
of our comrades believed that this kind of court was only created as a matter of
formality, but in reality either you are innocent or guilty, you are sure to get
stiff penalty.

“In view of these beliefs of some of our comrades, several of
them had to plead guilty; firstly, to save themselves from the mobs and to
curtail further sufferings of which they had for so long over enduring since the
time of their internment.

“In testimony hereof, we hereunto affix our signatures this 7th
day of June, 1946.

(Sgd.) “FRANCISCO CONCEPCION                  (Sgd.) “DIONICIO AGONCILLO
(Sgd.) “MATEO PEREZ                                       (Sgd.) “ANTONIO RACAZA

 “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of June, 1946.
Affiants are all detained in the provincial jail.

(Sgd.) “FRANCISCO E. F. REMOTIGUE
“Notary
Public
“Until December 31st, 1946“

Counsel alleges in his brief that appellant made his plea of
guilty under physical and moral duress and that the People’s Court in Cebu was
itself evidently cowed by the populace and it could not impose a judicial order
against the disturbances then obtaining and it quotes the following news item
published in the April 28, 1946 issue of the “Pioneer Press” of Cebu which
reads:

“UNDERCOVER MAN BADLY INJURED

“Pablo Labra, considered a notorious Guadalupe undercover man
during the Jap regime, is in critical condition as a result of the blows he had
received yesterday morning from a furious crowd at the trial at the People’s
Court Thursday noon.

“The people witnessing the court trial were moved to
indignation against Labra when Maj. Benjamin K. Gorospe, as special prosecutor
of the PA Judge Advocate Service; vividly and dramatically fired his questions
at the accused during the direct examination.

“According to the complaint, Labra, together with some kempeis,
led a Jap Army patrol which led to the apprehension of former Governor Abellana
and family. Abellana died at the hands of the Japanese.”

He also quotes the following editorial of the Manila “Evening
News” of March 1, 1946.

“A DISTURBING LAPSE
(By Vicente Albano Pacis)

“In a recent decision of the People’s Court there is injected
an extraneous element that must be disturbing to all thoughtful people. It is
embodied in the following portion of the decision of the First Division in the
case of the People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Racaza, Criminal Case No.
207:

” ‘The Filipino people, indeed, abhor collaboration with the
enemy. In the instant case as an example, a big crowd gathered at the plaza of
the Cebu capitol, during the three days of trial, and right there the public
showed visible indignation with an eager desire that the collaborators be dealt
with by the court of justice without mercy.’

“It was Mr. Justice Holmes who said in the classic case of
Patterson vs. Colorado:

” ‘The theory of our (judicial) system is that the conclusions
to be reached in a case will be induced only by the evidence and argument in
open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public
print.’

“Such a concept as this is basic and constitutes an
indispensable limitation of the democratic theory that the majority rules. In
the consideration of crimes—in the evaluation of evidence and interpretations of
the law in general—only the knowledge of the law and its fair application can
insure justice. That is why litigations are not left to town meetings but to
courts where obtains a certain insulation from extraneous influences and where
the points of fact and of law can be decided, in a sort of judicial vacuum.
Popular vote may indicate confidence in issues or men but it can never
consistently administer justice.

“In regard to cases of enemy collaboration, if the courts were
to take cognizance of demonstrations such as those noted in the decision in
question, parties concerned would sooner or later resort to all sorts of means
of bringing about outside pressure to bear. Such a state of affairs would be
only little removed from anarchy if not revolution.

“In fairness to the People’s Court it should be added that, in
the case cited, the accused not only had confessed his culpability for most of
the crimes imputed to him but the prosecution had also presented in open court
conclusive evidence against the accused. As the decision itself states, ‘* * *
the prosecution substantiated the overt acts specified in counts Nos. 2, 3, 4,
6, 7, 11, 12 and 13 by two competent witnesses and the rest of the (total of)
fourteen and all of them are likewise proven through the confessions of the
defendant in open Court.’ No outside pressure was, therefore, necessary so that
the Court would arrive at the decision it reached; namely, death of the accused
by electrocution and a fine of P20,000. But we believe that the Court’s having
taken cognizance in its written decision of the hostile crowds around the place
of trial constituted a disturbing lapse—an excursion into territory beyond the
limit of objective justice.”

Appellant points to the significant statement of Attorney
Hermosisima which appears on page 9 of the transcript, made after the prosecutor
suggested that a new arraignment be made.

“Prosecutor Gatmaitan: I ask that he be rearraigned on those
counts to which he will plead guilty.

“Atty. Hermosisima: It will only kindle the fire again of the
public against the accused, your Honor, and instead of promoting peace and
order, we will only be kindling the fire again.”

Considering the unusual circumstances of the case, in an effort
to reach the bottom of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arraignment
of the accused in which the plea of guilty was entered, at the hearing of this
case on September 20, 1947, this Court indicated its willingness to receive
affidavits that the appellee may file in answer to the affidavits of the
appellants, and on October 2, 1947, appellee filed nine affidavits which are
marked as Exhibits 1 to 9. They are reproduced below.

“EXHIBIT 1

“I, Martina L. Arnoco, Filipino, of legal age, married,
Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu, and a resident of the City of Cebu,
after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

“1. That during the early part of February, 1946, I was
appointed attorney de oficio of Ignacio Calinawan, one of the political
detainees then confined in the provincial jail of Cebu, whose case was set for
trial. At that time, the People’s Court stationed in Cebu was holding session in
the second story of the capitol building trying treason cases of Cebu political
detainees.

“2. That I assisted the defendant Calinawan in the trial before
the People’s Court presided over by Judges Fortunato V. Borromeo and Florentino
Saguin. I remember that I was in Court no less than three days as Calinawan’s
counsel, and the special prosecutor who handled the case for the government was
Magno S. Gatmaitan.

“3. Inside the courtroom, the political detainees had a special
bench with a wooden inclosure (barandilla) where they were guarded closely by MP
guards. I also saw MP guards posted in different parts of the courtroom and in
the premises adjoining the courtroom, in order to keep the people orderly and to
protect the political detainees from any violence from the public. During those
days that I was in court assisting the defendant Calinawan in his trial, the
proceedings of the People’s Court were orderly. Some people were seated on the
benches, while those who could not be accommodated were standing behind those
who were seated, but all behaved peacefully without creating any commotion of
any kind. I did not see among the crowd in the courtroom any person rushing
towards the seat of the political detainees; neither have I seen a single person
throwing’stone, or any object at the political prisoners; neither have I seen
any person carrying hunting knives, iron bars, clubs or any other dangerous
weapons inside the Court.

“4. That the people once in a while murmured or hissed whenever
they heard remarks not to their liking during the course of the trial, but their
attention was called by the Judges of the People’s Court and the crowd in the
courtroom would again keep silent. In other words, during my stay in the session
hall of the People’s Court in Cebu, the trial and other court proceedings were
conducted under the same peaceful atmosphere as that prevailing in the Court of
First Instance of Cebu, which held trials in the same story of the capitol
building where the People’s Court was then holding its sessions.

“5. That with respect to the case of Ignacio Calinawan for whom
I was appointed attorney de oficio, I desire to state the following: I
accepted the appointment with reluctance, with verbal protest to Judge Fortunato
V. Borromeo, fearing that I be criticized for handling cases of collaborators by
my colleagues. Lawyers then did not want to handle cases of this nature. But
having been ordered by the People’s Court, I could not refuse. I did not ask any
compensation from defendant Calinawan in order to handle his case. Neither money
consideration was broached between him and myself. I have been in the People’s
Court no less than three times to handle his case. He was convicted by the
People’s Court and while the case was pending in the Supreme Court, I was
notified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court to handle the case on appeal but at
that time I mas already appointed Register of Deeds of Cebu and I manifested
that I could not continue appearing for him in view of my official duties. It is
not true that I persuaded defendant Calinawan to plead guilty, telling him that
his case was hopeless. In fact, I had a heated discussion with Special
prosecutor Magno S. Gatmaitan because he called me at his office and told me to
persuade my client, Calinawan, to plead guilty. He showed me the array of
evidence against Calinawan. I told him that that should better be done in open
court and that should be done by the defendant himself if he so desired.
Calinawan was arraigned and pleaded ‘not guilty,’ and so we proceeded with the
trial of his case until it was finished in the People’s Court.

“6. That I know the defendant Mariano T. Jaucian when he was
yet a member of the Cebu City Secret Service before the war. I saw him in the
courtroom of the People’s Court during one of the trials of Ignacio Calinawan. I
noticed that he had no wounds, bandage, or any sign that he was suffering from
any physical injury.

“Further affiant sayeth not.

“Cebu City, September 24, 1947.

(Sgd.) “MARTINA L. ARNOCO

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) IGNACIO DEBUQUE
“Special Prosecutor“

“EXHIBIT 2

“I, Florencia Morcilla, of legal age, single, employee in the
office of the provincial fiscal of Cebu, and a resident of the City of Cebu,
after having been duly sworn according to law, hereby depose and say:

“1. That during the month of February, 1946, I was already
working as Clerk in the Office of the provincial fiscal of Cebu. The main door
of our office was facing, and until now faces, the session hall of the People’s
Court in the second floor of the capitol building of Cebu. The distance between
the door and the sala of the People’s Court is less than five meters. During the
trials of Antonio Racaza Racaza, Mariano T. Jaucian and other notorious
political detainees in the early part of February, 1946, I often stood at the
door of our office when I was not busy and from there, I witnessed the
proceedings of the People’s Court presided over by Judges Fortunato V. Borromeo
and Florentino Saguin.

“2. That during those days, I saw many MP guards, no less than
eight, all armed, posted in various parts of the courtroom of the People’s
Court, some right on the sides of the detainees, some at the main door of the
Court near the stairs which lead from the ground floor to the second floor where
the court sessions were held. The courtroom was jammed with people eager to see
the court proceedings. There were people even in the third floor looking down at
the second story where the People’s Court held its trials. In the crowd I saw
several women. Oftentimes, I went nearer and mixed with the crowd in the
People’s Court room to see better what was going on.

“3. That during the days when Mariano T. Jaucian was in Court
for the trial of his case, I did not see any disorder among the public. I did
not see people carrying hunting knives, iron bars, stones or any other kind of
deadly weapon. The MP guards were there to watch the people and to protect the
detainees from any violence. I did not notice any commotion. I did not see
people in the courtroom rush towards Jaucian, and their companion-detainees. I
did not see anybody inflict bodily harm upon any one of them. The trials were
orderly and peaceful and the people behaved well as in ordinary trials I have
seen in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, held also in the second floor of
the Cebu Capitol Building.

“4. That what I noticed was on the concrete plaza down below
and outside the capitol building, many people who did not find accommodations in
the courtroom of the People’s Court in the second floor, because it was
extremely crowded and warm, gathered and some of them hissed at and uttered
unpleasant remarks about the detainees while the latter were walking across the
concrete plaza situated between the door of the ground floor and the waiting
truck parked on the road in front of the capitol building. Aside from these
remarks, nothing else took place. I did not see any people in the crowd throw
stones at, strike or manhandle the prisoners because they were escorted by MP
guards to the waiting truck. After the political prisoners have boarded the
truck, the MP guards boarded said car also and conducted the prisoners towards
the provincial jail.

“5. That while the People’s Court sessions were going on up in
the second story, there were MP guards posted on the concrete plaza to make the
people keep quiet whenever they caused any noise sufficient to disturb the Court
proceeding above.

Further, affiant sayeth not.

“Cebu City, Philippines, September 24, 1947.

(Sgd.) “FLORENCIA MORCILLA

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) “J0SE C. BORROMEO
“provincial fiscal, Cebu”

“EXHIBIT 3

“I, Jesus S. Delute, 1st Lieutenant, MPC, Philippine Army, Cebu
Command, forty years of age, married, and a resident of Cebu City, after being
duly sworn according to law, depose and say:

“1. That around the first week of February, 1946, I was sent by
Major Villanueva, the Provincial Provost Marshal, MPC, of Cebu at that time, to
reinforce the guard at the People’s Court and there were in all sixteen enlisted
men and four MP officers. These MP’s took the political detainees whose cases
were being called for trial in the People’s Court, from the provincial jail to
the capitol building and escorted them also from the capitol building back to
the provincial jail;

“2. That I know Mariano T. Jaucian, one of the political
detainees whose cases were called for trial in the People’s Court on February 7,
1946. During the court session that day, there were MP guards stationed right in
the courtroom, no less than eight. Some were posted at the sides of the
political detainees, others at the main door of the stairs connecting the ground
floor and the second floor where the People’s Court was holding its session, and
some were distributed in different places in the premises of the courtroom. The
purpose was to keep order and check arms of the people going inside the court.
At first there were only eight guards including officers who performed duty in
the People’s Court, but due to the petition of the Judges of the People’s Court
to reinforce the MP guards, the Provincial Provost Marshal increased the number
of MP guards in order that there would be MP guards posted in the courtroom of
the People’s Court and in the premises of the capitol building, to protect the
detainees from mob violence;

“3. That on February 7, 1946, I was at the capitol building of
Cebu together with, the MP guards. Jaucian was arraigned at that time. He was
assisted by his counsel, Attorney Honorato Hermosisima. After the information
was read to him by the People’s Court Interpreter, Mr. Tomas H. Nery, Jr.,
Jaucian pleaded ‘not guilty.’ I did not see the crowd in the courtroom rush
towards Jaucian and his fellow indictee, Hernandez. Hor did I see any people
inside the courtroom with hunting knives, iron bars or stones. Some people
hissed after Jaucian pleaded ‘not guilty,’ but they remained in their seats and
they did not rush towards Jaucian and Hernandez. Many MP guards were there
inside the courtroom precisely to keep order and to protect the indictees from
any possible attack on the part of the public;

“4. After the arraignment of Jaucian on February 7, 1946, my MP
guards and I boarded the weapon’s carrier back to the provincial jail. No
untoward incident happened. There was no guard on board the car who told Jaucian
that if he would not plead ‘guilty’, the next time he would be brought to the
court, he would bad be left to the mob; and that if the mob would not injure him
the MP guards would do it on the pretext that he (jaucian) tried to escape. Had
there been such threats uttered by any one of my guards, I would have heard them
and I could immediately reprimand him, because precisely we were detailed there
to protect the political detainees;

“5. That there were many people outside the capitol building.
They were gathered in the plaza in front of the door leading to the ground
floor. They had sticks and they caused a lot of noise. In fact, I had to go down
to call them to observe order. But one of those in the crowd, Tomas Fernandez by
name, got angry and shouted at me, calling me that I was a sympathizer of the
undercovers. I called him down and told him to observe order because the
People’s Court was holding session the second floor. But in view of his
aggressive attitude, I had to approach him and grab him by the shirt with the
purpose of bringing him to the provincial fiscal, but he resisted and he tried
to incite the crowd to violence instead. I grabbed his coat and gave him a blow
to give the crowd, a lesson and warning. After that, the people calmed down;

“6. That, in the morning of February 8, 1946, Jaucian was again
brought to the People’s Court for trial of his case. However, his attorney,
Atty. Honorato Hermosisima, manifested to the Court that Jaucian was going to
plead ‘guilty.’ So the Court asked Jaucian if that is true and Jaucian confirmed
that he was going to change his first plea of ‘not guilty’ to that of ‘guilty.’
The information was read and he entered the plea of ‘guilty.’ I did not see any
hostile crowd inside the courtroom at that time. I did not gee any person with
hunting knives, iron bars wrapped in newspapers or stones wrapped in
handkerchiefs or any other weapons; otherwise, I and my MP guards would have
arrested them right then and there;

“7. That when the detainees were placed on a weapon’s carrier
from the provincial jail to the capitol building, on board the weapon’s carrier
were twelve MP’s with arms to protect the prisoners. As soon as they arrived in
front of the capitol building and the detainees and the guards alighted, the
latter escorted the detainees to the second story of the capitol building where
the People’s Court was holding sessions. There was a crowd in front of the
capitol building which shouted and said so many unpleasant words arainst the
detainees, but the guards kept them away and nothing happened to the detainees
until they reached the session hall of the People’s Court. Then again after the
trials, the same political detainees were escorted by the MP’s until they
boarded the truck parked in front of the capitol building and the detainees were
returned to the provincial jail; and

“8. That during the two days, February 7 and 8, 1946, that
Jaucian was in the courtroom, I did not notice any incident which disturbed the
orderly proceedings of the People’s Court, and during those two days that I saw
Jaucian in the courtroom I did not notice that he had any wound or any kind of
physical injuries until he was returned to the provincial jail after having
entered the plea of ‘guilty’ on February 8, 1946.

“Cebu City, September 23, 1947.

(Sgd.) “JESUS S. DELUTE

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Province of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) “JOSE L. ABAD
“1st Assistant City Fiscal.”

“EXHIBIT 4

“I, Gaudencio C. Jimenez, of legal age, single, private, MPC,
Philippine Army, Cebu Command, and a resident of Cebu City, after being duly
sworn according to law, depose and say:

“1. That around the first week, of February, 1946, I was sent
by 1st Sgt. Ocaba, MPC, Cebu City, to reinforce the guard at the People’s Court,
capitol building, Cebu City. There were sixteen in all enlisted men and four MP
officers. These MP’s took the political, detainees whose cases were being called
for trial in the People’s Court, from the provincial jail to the capitol
building and escorted them also from the capitol building back to the provincial
jail;

“2. That I know Mariano T. Jaucian, one of the political
detainees whose cases were called for trial in the People’s Court on February 7,
1946. During the court’s session that day, there were MP guards stationed right
in the courtroom, no less than eight. I was one of the guards assigned in the
courtroom of the People’s Court. Some guards were posted at the sides of the
political detainees, others at the main door of the stairs connecting the ground
floor and the second floor where the People’s Court was holding its session, and
some were distributed in different places in the premises of the courtroom. The
purpose was to keep order ana check the arms and weapons of the people going
inside the court. At first, there were only eight guards including officers who
performed duty in the People’s Court to reinforce the MP guards, the Provincial
Provost Marshal increased the number of the MP guards in order that there would
be MP guards posted in the courtroom of the People’s Court and in the premises
of the capitol building, to protect the detainees from violence;

“3. That on February 7, 1946, I was at the capitol building of
Cebu together with the MP guards. Jaucian was arraigned at that time. He was
assisted by his Counsel, Atty. Honorato Hermosisima. After the information was
read to him by the People’s Court Interpreter, Mr. Tomas H. Nery, Jr., Jaucian
pleaded ‘not guilty.’ I did not see the crowd in the courtroom rush towards,
Jaucian and his fellow indictee, Hernandez. Nor did I see any people inside the
courtroom with hunting knives, iron bars or stones. Some people hissed after
Jaucian pleaded ‘not guilty,’ but they remained in their seats and they did not
rush towards Jaucian and Hernandez. Many MP guards were there inside the
courtroom precisely to keep order and to protect the indictees from any possible
attack on the part of the public;

“4. That in the morning of February 8, 1946, Jaucian was again
brought to the People’s Court for the trial of his case. However, his attorney,
Atty. Honorato Hermosisima, manifested to the Court that Jaucian was going to
plead ‘guilty.’ So the Court asked Jaucian if that is true and Jaucian confirmed
that he was going to change his first plea of ‘not guilty,’ to that of ‘guilty.’
The information was read and he entered the plea of ‘guilty.’ I did not see any
hostile crowd inside the courtroom at that time. I did not see any person with
hunting knives, iron bars wrapped in newspapers or stones wrapped in
handkerchiefs or any other weapons; otherwise, I and my MP companions would have
arrested them right then and there;

“5. That during my assignment as one of the MP guards, the
detainees were placed on a weapon’s carrier from the provincial jail to the
capitol building. On board the weapon’s carrier were several MP guards and
officers all armed to protect the prisoners. As soon as the car arrived in front
of the capitol building, the detainees and we guards alighted. We escorted the
detainees to the second story of the capitol building where the People’s Court
was holding sessions. There wss a crowd in front of the capitol building which
shouted and said so many unpleasant words against the detainees, but we guards
kept them away and nothing happened to the detainees until they reached the
session hall of the People’s Court. Then again after the trials, the same
political detainees were escorted by us until they boarded the truck parked in
front of the capitol building and the detainees were returned to the provincial
jail; and

“6. That during the two days, February 7 and 8, 1946, that
Jaucian was in the courtroom, I did not notice any incident whfch disturbed the
orderly proceedings of the People’s Court, and during those two days that I saw
Jaucian in the courtroom, I did not notice that he had any wound or any kind of
physical injuries until he was returned to the provincial jail after having
entered the plea of ‘guilty’ on February 8, 1946.

“Cebu City, September 23, 1947.

(Sgd.) “GAUDENCIO C. JIMENEZ

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Province of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) “IGNACIO DEBUQUE
Special prosecutor“

“EXHIBIT 5

“I, Ananias V. Maribao, assistant provincial fiscal of Cebu, of
legal age, married, and a resident of Cebu City, after having been duly sworn
according to law, hereby depose and say:

“1. That I was a practicing attorney in the City and Province
of Cebu during the month of February, 1946;

“2. That during the first days of the trial of the People’s
Court (5th Division) in the capitol building in Cebu City during the month of
February, 1946, I went to the capitol building to see the trials of political
detainees. In view of the fact that there were so many people in the second
floor where the People’s Court was holding sessions, I was able to see the court
proceedings only from the third floor of the capitol building of Cebu. There
were also many people in the third story looking down at the People’s Court
holding sessions on the second floor.

“As far as I could remember, the political detainees were
handcuffed when they were brought to the courtroom accompanied by MP guards duly
armed with rifles. But when they were already in the courtroom, their handcuffs
were removed. Although there were many people in the courtroom and in the
adjoining premises, the sessions of the People’s Court were orderly. Among the
crowd in the courtroom, I have not seen any person carrying or holding hunting
knives, iron bars, stones or any other weapon; nor have I see any of the
detainees who were brought to the court for trial being stoned or manhandled by
any person in the crowd;

“3. That with respect to the particular case of Mariano T.
Jaucian, one of the political detainers, I have this to say: When he was
arraigned in Court he was accompanied by his counsel, Atty. Honorato
Hermosisima. The courtroom was crowded. There were even women among the
spectators. Jaucian pleaded not guilty to all the counts. Mr. Tomas H. Nery,
Jr., interpreter of the People’s Court, was the one who read the information to
him. During the course of the reading of the information to Jaucian, there was
no extraordinary incident of any kind. The People’s Court maintained order
throughout the proceedings with respect to Jaucian’s case. I saw not less than
two Filipino MP soldiers posted right in the place where the indictees were
seated, to keep watch over said indictees. There were also around six uniformed
soldiers with arms posted in different parts of the courtroom, two at the main
door leading to the second story of the building, and others distributed around
the courtroom with the public. After Jaucian entered his plea of not guilty, the
crowd remained in the same orderly manner with no untoward incident happening in
the courtroom. I have not seen any person in the crowd approach or rush toward
Jaucian and Hernandez with stones, clubs, iron bars, or any other weapon. In
fact, Jaucian has not suffered my personal violence from the people on that
occasion;

“4. That after the trial in the People’s Court, the detainees
were handcuffed again and escorted to the ground floor by the MP guards and
provincial guards until they boarded the truck which was parked on the main road
facing the ground floor of the capitol building. The crowd shouted and hissed at
the political prisoners while they were passing, but the MP guards kept the
crowd away from them.

“Cebu City, September 22, 1947.

(Sgd.) “ANANIAS V. MARIBAO

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Province of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) “J0SE C. BORROMEO
“provincial fiscal, Cebu“

“EXHIBIT 6

“I, Tomas H. Nery, Jr., of legal age, married, Acting Deputy
Clerk, People’s Court, 5th Division, and a resident of the City of Cebu, after
being duly sworn according to law, depose and say:

“1. That during the month of February, 1946, I was court
interpreter and special deputy clerk of the People’s Court, 5th Division,
stationed in the City of Cebu, under Judges Hon. Fortunato V. Borromeo and Hon.
Florentino Saguin. As such Interpreter and Special Deputy Clerk, I was present
in the courtroom during the trial of Antonio Racaza Racaza, Mariano T. Jaucian
and others.

“2. That in the morning of February 7, 1946, the treason case
against Mariano T. Jaucian was called by the People’s Court. The defendant
Jaucian appeared with his Counsel, Honorato Hermosisima. Upon the order of the
Court to arraign the accused, I asked Mariano T. Jaucian whether he understood
English, and he answered in the affirmative. Forthwith, I read the information
and for every count I asked him whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty. To each
and every count he pleaded ‘not guilty.’ The Court then set the trial of his
case for the following day, February 8, 1946.

“3. That during his arraignment and after he entered his plea
of ‘not guilty,’ there were many people in the courtroom occupying all available
seats and some were standing behind those who were seated. There was quiet and
order in the courtroom. I did not see any person rush towards the accused,
Mariano T. Jaucian, nor any other indictees inside the courtroom. I have not
seen any person carrying hunting knives, iron bars, stones nor any other weapon
wrapped in paper or handkerchiefs inside the courtroom. At that time, there were
many MP guards in the courtroom, no less than eight MP guards with IP officers.
I still remember that two MP guards were expressly posted on both ends of the
bench where Jaucian and other indictees were sitting. There were also MP guards
posted at the main door of the second floor leading to the courtroom of the
People’s Court which people used in going from the ground floor to the second
story where the People’s Court was holding sessions. There were also MP guards
posted in the corridor, and in the adjoining premises of the second story. These
HP guards were furnished by the Provincial Provost Marshal of Cebu upon the
request of the Judges of the People’s Court in view of the fact that there were
rumors that some people might harm the political prisoners.

“4. That after Mariano T. Jaucian had pleaded ‘not guilty,’ the
other indictee, Manuel Hernandez, was arraigned by order of the court and he
also pleaded ‘not guilty.’ After the session of the Court on February 7, 1946,
Jaucian, Hernandez and the other political prisoners were escorted by the MP
guards to the ground floor of the capitol building and from there to the
weapon’s carrier parked on the street in front of the capitol building, and the
MP guards also boarded the same car with the detainees up to the provincial
jail.

“5. That there were many people in the concrete plaza in front
of the ground floor of the capitol building while Jaucian and the other
political detainees were being led to the weapon’s carrier. The people made a
lot of noise and some even made unpleasant remarks towards the political
detainees, but they could not approach the prisoners, because the MP guards were
there watching them and, in fact, drove the people away.

“6. That Mariano T. Jaucian and the other political detainees
were handcuffed up to the time when they entered the courtroom, but when they
were already in the courtroom their handcuffs were removed upon the order of the
Judges. Then after the session and before roing to the ground floor, the
political detainees were again handcuffed while they were being, returned to the
provincial jail.

“7. That In the morning of February 8, 1946, I was in the
courtroom during the whole court proceedings of the People’s Court. The case of
Mariano T. Jaucian was called by the court for trial and he was accompanied by
his lawyer, Atty. Honorato Hermosisima. Atty. Hermosisima manifested to the
Court that his client, Mariano T. Jaucian, was going to change his plea of ‘not
guilty’ to that of ‘guilty.’ Judge Borromeo called the accused, Jaucian, and
asked him if the statement of his attorney that he was going to plead ‘guilty’
was true; and Jaucian manifested that it was true. Upon the order of the Court,
I read again the information to the defendant Jaucian. To each and every count
in the information, except one (which I do not now remember), he pleaded
‘guilty.’

“8. That In that morning of February 8, 1946, before the
information was read again to defendant, Jaucian, there was quiet and order in
the courtroom. There were many people crowded as usual with MP guards and MP
officers near the political prisoners, at the door and in other plsces in the
premises of the courtroom. I have not seen any person throwing stone at
defendant Jaucian or at any other detainee inside the courtroom; nor have I see
any person carrying iron bars or lcnives wrapped in paper, nor any prohibited
weapon, because the MP guards were very careful while guarding the courtroom and
its premises. If there had been people carrying prohibited weapons, they could
have been easily noticed and they would have been arrested by the MP guards and
officers.

“9. That during those two days, February 7 and 8, 1946, that
Mariano T. Jaucian was in the courtroom, I did not notice that he had any wound
or scratch of any kind. I can state positively this fact, because Jaucian was in
front of me at a distance of about half a meter, and at the end of every count I
stopped, looked at him and asked him his plea. I noticed that he had the
appearance of a normal person, smiling once in a while without any sign of being
forced to do anything against his will. His attorney, Honorato Hermosisima was
always by his side during all the course of the court proceedings against
Mariano T. Jaucian.

“Cebu City, September 23, 1947.

(Sgd.) “TOMAS H. NERY, JR.

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) “J0SE C. BORROMEO
“provincial fiscal, Cebu“.

“EXHIBIT 7

“I, Domiciano C. Lambo, of legal age, married, practicing
attorney in the City of Cebu, formerly Special Prosecutor assigned to handle
treason cases in the City of Cebu, together with Special Prosecutor Magno S.
Gatmaitan, and a resident of Cebu City, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby testify:

“(QUESTIONS ASKED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IGNACIO DEBUQUE.)

“Q. Were you present during the sessions of the 5th Division of
the People’s Court held in Cebu provincial capitol, City of Cebu, on February 6,
7 and 8, 1946?—A. Yes, sir. I was Special Prosecutor then, assigned to the City
of Cebu.

“Q. Mariano T. Jaucian in his affidavit. Annex B attached to
the Motion for New Trial to the Supreme Court, among other things, stated that
on February 6, 1946, Dionisio Agoncillo, Antonio Racaza, Francisco Concepcion
and Mateo Perez were called to your office and you told them to testify against
an indictee named Marcelo Laborte; that they refused, alleging that they did not
know anything about the activities of Laborte; that upon their refusal to
testify, you told them in a threatening manner that if they would not testify
for the prosecution against defendant Laborte, they will be mobbed by the
civilians outside, and that those threatening words were uttered in the presence
of the city police. What do you say about this statement?—A. That is a big lie,
because on February 6, 1946, I did not call those people—Dionisio Agoncillo,
Antonio Racaza, Francisco Concepcion and Mateo Perez—to my office. It is true
that when the case of Laborte was scheduled for trial, I think, more than two
weeks after the date when Jaucian pleaded ‘guilty’ before the People’s Court (I
don’t remember very well the exact date), upon examining the records of the case
of Laborte, we found out that there were some political detainees who were
mentioned in the affidavits attached to the CIC case report against Laborte.
When one Francisco Concepcion and two other prisoners were brought to court, I
took occasion to question them whether they knew something about the
pro-Japanese activities of Laborte. After each one of them answered that they
had nothing to say against Laborte, I let them alone, and from that time on I
never had any dealing with those people. As I said, this conference took place
long after Jaucian had pleaded guilty.

“Q. Were there policemen present in your office at that time
when you interviewed Dionisio Agoncillo, Antonio Racaza, Francisco Concepcion
and Mateo Perez?—A. I interviewed only Francisco Concepcion, Dionisio Agoncillo
and Mateo Perez. Antonio Racaza was not with them at that time. They were
escorted by provincial guards. There were MPs also.

“Q. During your interview with Concepcion, Agoncillo and Perez
in February, 1946, that is more than two weeks after Jaucian had pleaded guilty,
did you tell them that if they would not testify for the prosecution against
Marcelo Laborte, they would be mobbed by the people?—A. No sir, that is a big
lie; I did not tell them so.

“Q. During the months of February and March, 1946, in the
course of the trial of political detainee in the People’s Court stationed in
Cebu City, have you at any time threatened any political detainee who refused to
testify for the prosecution? Have you told them that they would be left to the
fury of the mob, because of their refusal to testify for the State?—A. No, sir.
I am a lawyer and I have been in the fiscal’s office for many years, and I know
that is against the law.

“Q. Mariano T. Jaucian, in his affidavit marked Annex ‘B’
attached to the Motion for New Trial filed with the Supreme Court, among other
things, said: That on February 7, 1946, he was brought to the People’s Court and
he was arraigned. After the arraignment he pleaded ‘not guilty.’ Thereafter,
Manuel Hernandez, another political indictee, was arraigned and he also entered
the plea of ‘not guilty.’ According to Jaucian, immediately thereafter the crowd
in the courtroom rushed towards them, threw on them stones, hitting Jaucian and
Hernandez several times; that the Judges felt powerless and they did nothing to
stop the alleged mob. Luckily, three American officers intervened. The Filipino
MPs did nothing to stop these people There were people in the courtroom,
according to Jaucian, who carried hunting knives, round objects wrapped in
handkerchiefs supposed to be stones, iron bars wrapped in newspapers, chicken
blades and other deadly weapons. Do you have anything to say with respect to
these statements of Jaucian?—A. They are all not true. The fact is, that
although the people at that time were very much interested in the trial of the
cases of the political detainees, inside the courtroom and in the premises of
said courtroom, everything was peace and order. In the courtroom and outside the
courtroom, there were plenty of MP guards in addition to the provincial guards
and they were posted there precisely to keep order, and to exclude unruly people
from the courtroom.

“Q. About how many MP guards and provincial guards were inside
the courtroom and in the courtroom premises?—A. Around twenty of them, I
believe.

“Q. Where were the MP guards and provincial guards posted?—A.
There were MP guards posted at every strategic corner and point of the capitol
building and in the courtroom while the People’s Court was in session; and even
after the Court terminated its sessions, before the prisoners were sent back to
the provincial jail, MP guards kept watch over them.

“Q. During the arraignment of Jaucian on February 7, 1946, when
he pleaded ‘not guilty,’ was he accompanied by Counsel?—A. He was defended by
Atty. Honorato Hermosisima, considered one of the best criminal lawyers in the
City and Province of Cebu.

“Q. Were you present in the courtroom on February 8, 1946,
when, according to Jaucian, he changed his plea of ‘not guilty’ to that of
guilty?—A. Yes, sir.

“Q. Please state briefly what proceedings were held in the
courtroom and what atmosphere was there in the courtroom during the
re-arraignment of Jaucian?—A. That morning, as usual, there was peace and order
in the courtroom as the People’s Court was very strict with respect to noise.
Everything seemed quiet and orderly. Atty. Honorato Hermosisima approached and
conferred with Special prosecutor Magno S. Gatmaitan who was near me. After the
conference, Atty. Hermosisima informed the Court that the accused desired to
change his plea of ‘not guilty’ given the day before to that of ‘guilty,’ except
to one or more counts (I don’t remember exactly how many). The Presiding Judge,
Judge Fortunato V. Borromeo (I believe, he was), of the People’s Court thereupon
asked the accused whether the manifestation of his attorney was true. Jaucian
answered that it was true. The information was again read to the accused in open
court by Mr. Tomas H. Nery, Jr., court interpreter and special deputy clerk of
court, and Jaucian after the reading of each count to him by Mr. Nery was asked
whether he understood each and every allegation in the information, to which
Jaucian answered in the affirmative.

“Q. Was he arraigned in English?—A. Yes, sir, In English;
Jaucian spoke good English. Then he was asked by Mr. Nery whether he would plead
‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty,’ after reading each count and Jaucian pleaded ‘guilty,’
with the exception of one or more counts (I do not remember exactly now).

“Q. Were you able to observe the attitude of the people below
and around the capitol building while the Court session was going on?—A. Yes,
sir.

“Q. What was the general attitude of the people?—A. During the
first days of the trial of the political detainees, the people in Cebu were
really angry at those whom they believed were responsible for their miseries
during the Japanese occupation. There were plenty of people outside and below
the capitol building. There were also many people inside the capitol building
who were eager spectators of the Court proceedings. But the government
authorities including the Judges of the People’s Court had taken every
precaution to protect those political! detainees from the indignant crowd who
were gathered in the plaza in front of the ground floor. When the detainees came
to Court or went back to the provincial jail after the Court sessions, they were
accompanied by MPs and provincial guards, and in spite of the fact that the
crowd outside the capitol building was mad, they could not do anything because
the MP guards kept close watch over the detainees.

“Q. Do you remember of any effotts or steps taken by the Judges
of the People’s Court to appease the public in their outspoken indignation
against the political detainees?—A. Yes, sir. The Presiding Judge of the
Division, Judge Borromeo (now Presiding Judge of the People’s Court), several
times told the public that the Court would not open its session unless everybody
would keep quiet, and so after the quiet was restored and everything was in
order, the Court would begin session. One time, I remember. Judge Borromeo went
downstairs to the plaza facing the ground floor of the capitol building and told
the people not to make so much noise; that they should leave the cases of the
political detainees to the Court. The people calmed down. After that, Judge
Borromeo went upstairs to the second story where the People’s Court held its
sessions.

“Q. Has there been any occasion during the arraignment or trial
of any detainee by the 5th Division of the People’s Court in Cebu during the
month of February, 1946, in which an unruly crowd entered the courtroom and some
people carried weapons like stones, iron bars, hunting knives, thereby
disturbing the proceedings of the court?—A. No, sir; there was none of the
kind.

“Q. During the times that you saw Jaucian in the courtroom, did
you notice whether he had wounds or any kind of physical injury?—A. He did not
have any physical injury. In fact, in the courtroom Jaucian was calm, smiling
once in a while, and appeared as usual, not worried.

“Q. On page 2 of the affidavit of Jaucian, Annex B, he states
that on account of the rush of the people to the courtroom on February 7, 1946,
eight of the ten benches inside the courtroom were broken. What do you say about
this?—A. That is not true. Not one bench or chair was broken, because there was
no rush of the crowd while Jaucian was being arraigned for the first time.
Neither was there disorder when he was arraigned for the second time, when he
pleaded ‘guilty.’

“Pros. Debuque: That is all; thank you.

“I, Domiciano C. Lambo, being duly sworn according to law,
hereby states that I have read and understood the foregoing questions directed
upon rue by Special Prosecutor Ignacio Debuque and likewise the answers I made
as set forth therein in answer to said questions; and I hereby state that all
the answers set forth therein are true and correct.

(Sgd.) “DOMICIANO C. LAMBO

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of September,
1947, in the City of Cebu, Province of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) “IGNACIO DEBUQUE
“Special
Prosecutor
“Office of Special Prosecutors.

“EXHIBIT 8

“I, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, being duly sworn, depose and say:

“That I have been asked by Solicitor Mr. Martiniano Vivo to
give my version of the happenings in the case of the trial of Mariano Jaucian
and that said happenings are the following to ths best of my memory:

“1. On 4 February 1946, said accused was arraigned on an
amended information but the arraignment was postponed to 7 February 1946;

“2. On 7 February 1946 Count 3 thereof was further amended to
charge the accused with the rape of two women, Paulina Canaya and Annia
Alcoseba. This amendment was necessitated because the undersigned had, the day
before, gone to Carcar, Cebu and secured evidence to sustain this amendment. The
accused pleaded not guilty and the case was set for hearing for the following
day;

“3. On the following day, 8 February 1946, the prosecution was
ready to prove counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 15, with, its witnesses present in
Court, the majority of whom were from Carcar, Cebu;

“4. However, Atty. Honorato Hermosisima for the accused, who
was attorney de-parte, asked for permission of the Court to speak with
the undersigned and he told the undersigned that the accused was willing to
plead guilty provided that Counts 3 as amended, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are
eliminated and also a certain phrase in Count 19. In that conference the
undersigned was also requested by Atty. Hermosisima to recommend life
imprisonment as penalty. The undersigned replied that as to the imposition of
the penalty, he would not make any recommendation of any kind as to the
withdrawal of the Counts mentioned, the undersigned after some study said that
he would be willing to drop the counts mentioned except Count 3 because as to
Count 3, the witnesses were already in the Court and were ready to testify. As
there was no agreement, the undersigned had to call his first witness and this
was one of the offended parties in Count 3, a young woman named Annie Alcoseba
who walked to the witness stand. At this juncture, the accused and Atty.
Hermosisima again had a conference and Atty. Hermosisima, after that conference
told the undersigned that the accused was willing to plead guilty to Count 3 as
amended and he said to the undersigned that even if the supreme penalty might be
imposed he believes that with a plea of guilty the Supreme Court would in all
probability change the penalty to life imprisonment. The undersigned retierated
to him that he would not make any recommendation as to the penalty. Accordingly,
Atty. Hermosisima announced to the Court that the accused would be willing to
plead guilty to the full information with the exception of counts 15, 17, 18 and
20 and the objectionable phrase in Count 19. Then the information was read one
by one but to the surprise of the Court, the defense Attorney himself and the
prosecution, when the reading came to Count 9 the accused insisted that he was
not guilty on said count. Thereupon, the remainder of the information, after
taking out the Counts 13, 17, 18 and 20 and the objectionable phrase in Count
19, was read and the accused pleaded guilty to the same;

“5. Referring to the Count 9, the prosecution was not ready on
the same and therefore upon its petition the trial was postponed to 11 February.
On 9 February 1946, Saturday, the prosecutor went to Carcar again to secure
evidence on this Count 9, but, notwithstanding his efforts and that of
prosecutor Domiciano Lambo in the examination of people in the municipal
building of Carcar and even going to the barrio concerned he was not able to
secure sufficient evidence;

“6. Therefore, on 11 February 1946 he had to admit to the Court
that he could not sustain that Count and therefore, he had to submit the case
without proving that Count. He however stated to the Court, in view of the
gravity of the offense charged, that he wished to satisfy the Court of the truth
by presenting his witnesses available on the most serious charges to which the
accused had pleaded guilty although he was fully aware that the accused was and
is highly intelligent and the attorney was and is a leading member of the bar of
Cebu. One reason why he said this was because he knew of the reluctance of the
Supreme Court in affirming judgments imposing the capital punishment where no
evidence had been taken upon a plea of guilty altho of course, he also knew that
this was in cases where accused is ignorant and did not fully understand the
consequence of his plea. The Court, considering thfe attitude of the accused who
appeared to be very intelligent and who understood the charges very well, ruled
that there was no more need. The undersigned remembers even, that the attorney
for the accused said that there was no need to present evidence and therefore no
more evidence was presented;

“7. The case was therefore submitted upon a plea of guilty to
the information as finally amended, discarding Counts 9, 13, 17, 18, 20 and the
phrase objected to in Count 19;

“8. As far as the violence of the people is concerned, the
undersigned remembers that there were many spectators in the trial which was
held in the second floor in the center of the provincial capitol of Cebu but the
audience was separated from the personnel of the Court and the witnesses by a
rope. On the counsel table, besides the prosecutors and the attorney for the
defense, who was then a City Counsilor of Cebu interested in the proper
administration of justice, there were regularly more or less 10 lawyers of the
bar of Cebu and among these the undersigned remembers Messrs. Filemon Sotto,
Roque Desquitado and Manuel Zosa. There were times really when the audience was
very noisy but other than this the proceedings inside the court room were in
order and the accused being seated towards the right of the court room, rather
far from the audience. The undersigned can certify that there was no violence at
all inside the court room, and certainly there was no throwing of stones
therein;

“9. However, the undersigned remembers that there was a
commotion on the road immediately in front of the capitol building sometime in
the morning after the hearing on February 6, but, the undersigned remembers that
the accused Mariano Jaucian was not then present as his case was not scheduled
at that time but the case of Antonio Racaza ;

“10. At no time so far has the undersigned remembers was the
accused, Mariano Jaucian the subject of any violence either on Febraary 4 when
he came to the court for arraignment or on the 7th of February when he pleaded
not guilty or on the 8th of February when the case was postponed or on the 11th
of February when the case was finally submitted. The undersigned remembers that
accused; Mariano Jaucian was a handsome man of mestizo type always dressed in
clean and smart polo shirt and it could easily be seen if he had been hurt;

“11. As to alleged intimidation, the undersigned remembers
perfectly well the several times when said accused insisted on the 8th of
February to the falsity of Count 9, so that the prosecution had to ask to
postpone the hearing on that Count 9 to 11 February;

“12. As to the knowledge of the accused that he might be given
the death penalty notwithstanding his plea of guilty, all that the undersigned
can say is that the attorney for the accused mentioned to the undersigned that
he feared that the People’s Court might really impose upon his client the death
penalty but that he had hopes that by his plea of guilty, the Supreme Court in
all probability would commute the sentence to life imprisonment;

“13. The undersigned has been informed that the defense in the
Supreme Court has made capital of some statements made by the undersigned during
the course of the trial in which he referred to his consultation with the
reputable members of the province of Cebu bar, and that his decision to
eliminate Count 9 was upheld by the townspeople of Carcar (p. 15; Brief of the
Appellant, p. 24). The reason why the prosecutor made those statements can be
understood if the following facts are considered;

“He arrived by plane in Cebu on 1 February 1946 in the
afternoon; with instructions from Solicitor-General Tañada to secure the moral
support of the people as much as possible in the prosecution of cases and to use
his discretion in maintaining that moral support because the prosecution’s
efficiency depends on public support; he was scheduled to prosecute some 25
cases congested in a calendar of three weeks; he had not interviewed a single
witness before he arrived in Cebu; the overt acts in the Information covered
various towns and remote barrios of Cebu; when he arrived in Cebu, there was not
even sufficient sccomodation; he had to study by candle light; cases were to be
heard on February 4 so that he had only two clays to prepare. Under the
circumstances he had to depend upon his ingenuity to interview as many persons
as possible and he took pains even to appeal to the general public. He went to
Carcar on February 2 and to remote barrios therein; to Mandate on February 4,
again to Carcar on February 6 and again on February 9. These towns were
sufficiently far from the City of Cebu. While he was able to make hurried
preparations under the circumstances and to bring witnesses on particular counts
in the first trials, he however, felt that it was possible that several people
in the court room and also reputable members of the bar who were present might
be able to help him. He therefore, used his discretion to make time and again
statements in open court and in public audiences which he calculated would
secure from these who might know the facts necessary support and cooperation,
These statements were made by him not because he was influenced by the public
opinion but because by pleasant diplomatic strokes, he wanted to create an
atmosphere favorable to his efforts of securing evidence. So in the
investigation he had in the municipal building of Carcar, Cebu on 9 February, a
Saturday afternoon, he appealed to the public of Carcar present in the municipal
building to give him all the evidence and information that might help him in
establishing Count 9. Thus he said in public in the municipal building of Carcar
that he wished everyone present to know that he would listen to evidence from
anybody concerned but that if no one could give evidence he would be compelled
to drop the count. The people tried to help him but they could not give him
sufficient evidence. They however, indicated to him how to go to the barrio of
the crime and accompanied by a municipal policeman he went to that barrio and
tried his best even though it was already evening to secure evidence but, he
failed;

“14. The undersigned came to feel that there was a strong but
responsible public opinion against collaborators in Cebu, but the personal
violence inflicted on some prisoners (and accused Mariano Jaucian was not one of
them), was done only by some irresponsible mischief makers far from the court
room and on the road immediately in front of the provincial capitol. If the
undersigned had only believed during the entire proceeding against Mariano
Jaucian that intimidation or force had been employed upon him to plead guilty he
would have insisted in the presentation of the evidence just the same because
the witnesses were present on Counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 15, and he was aware as a
prosecutor that if the death penalty was imposed, the case would have to be
taken to the Supreme Court for review and if the Supreme Court would have been
convinced that there was no voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty, the case
would have to be remanded for new trial with the consequence that in the
interval something may have happened to his witnesses.

(Sgd.) “MAGNO S. GATMAITAN
“Special
prosecutor“

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of September
1947 at Manila, Philippines.

(Sgd.)”PEDRO C. QUINTO
“Special
prosecutor“

“EXHIBIT 9

“I, Fortunato Borromeo Veloso, being duly sworn depose and
say:

“1. That I have been asked by Solicitor Mr. Martiniano Vivo to
give what I remember of the proceedings in the case against Mariano Jaucian
because, according to him said accused challenges the validity of the trial on
the ground that there was violence and that he had only been compelled to plead
guilty.

“2. That so far as the undersigned remembers, there was really
a strong public opinion against collaborators in Cebu; the undersigned being
himself from that province; but, to say that the mob violence dominated the
trial in that case is not really the truth.

“3. The truth is that as far as the undersigned remembers, the
proceedings inside the court room were regular; the undersigned noticed that the
accused who was apparently a very intelligent man, was acting with full
voluntariness and consciousness of his acts and his lawyer appeared to be a very
intelligent attorney. In the court room on the counsel table, there were about a
dozen lawyers from Cebu who saw the entire proceedings. There was one instance
when the accused insisted in denying one of the counts and this convinced the
judges all the more that he was not under any compulsion whatever.

“4. In the beginning of the trial the undersigned remembers
that the attorney for the accused, Mr. Honorato Hermosisima, wanted to have a
private talk with the judges. (Afterwards we came to learn that he had wanted to
see our view to imposing life imprisonment instead of death upon a plea of
guilty), but surmising that he wanted us to give him in private a moral
assurance to that effect, we did not permit that and just told him that he could
confer with the prosecutor and this was what he did and at the beginning
apparently they could not agree because the prosecutor called is witness and one
of them was a young woman, but, when the prosecutor apparently intended to go
ahead with the case, the accused called his lawyer and they conferred and later
on the lawyer said that he would plead guilty to the same information discarding
only several counts which he mentioned.

“5. When the prosecutor agreed to that statement, the
information was read again and to our surprise, upon reaching one of the counts,
not excepted by him in the plea of guilty, the accused insisted on a plea of
not guilty to that count so that the trial could not take place on that
count and had to be postponed on that day because the prosecutor said that he
was not ready on evidence on that particular count that same day. When the day
of trial came the prosecutor withdrew that count because he said that after an
investigation in Carcar, he could not sustain that count.

“6. So far as the charge that there was mob violence is
concerned, the undersigned can certify that there was really a disturbance in
front of the provincial capitol, around 40 meters distant from the main entrance
thereof, after one of the trial in the case of another prisoner, Antonio Racaza,
but, the accused, Mariano Jaucian was not connected at all with that case, and
his trial was not on that day but on another day. What the undersigned actually
saw on one or two occasions was that when the prisoners, the trial, in order to
be taken back to the provincial jail, a large number of people lined up along
the patio of the provincial capitol. As the prisoners, guarded by the MP’s
passed along on their way to the truck that was to take them, the crowd
attempted to mob the prisoners and some of them stoned them. The MP’s guarding
the prisoners defended them and were able to disperse the crowd only after they
threatened to shoot them. The distance along which the people were lined up from
the mainentrance of the capitol to the place where the prisoners could be loaded
on the truck is approximately 40 to 50 meters.

“7. If the undersigned had seen any appearance on the accused,
Mariano Jaucian, that he was under compulsion or that he had suffered any
injury, he would not have permitted the prosecution to submit its case without
presenting any evidence. But from his appearances, Mariano Jaucian was acting
voluntarily and very intelligently and he had not been the receiver of any
injury throughout the course of his trial. And therefore, considering the fact
that his plea of guilty was made freely and intellicently and he was assisted by
a very reputed member of the Cebu bar and as the People’s Court had on its hands
many other cases, the Court believed that there was no more use of the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution on the counts to which he had
pleaded guilty.

“8. In the imposition of the penalty, the Court believed that
they could not do anything but impose the death penalty because at least four of
the charges so far as the undersigned remembers, were capital crimes without any
extenuating circumstances except his plea of guilty, and there concurred several
aggravating circumstances.

“Manila, 19 September 1947.

(Sgd.) “FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO

“Subscribed and sworn to before me, September 19, 1947.

(Sgd.) “JOSE Y. LIM
“Clerk of Court
“People’s
Court“

The Supreme Court devoted considerable time in analyzing and
weighing the circumstance under which appellant entered his plea of guilty, and
the members have been evenly divided on the question as to whether or not the
case should be remanded, to the lower court for a new trial because, as
contended by appellant’s counsel, the plea of guilty was entered into under
physical and moral duress, against which the lower court was not able to protect
him.

Some Justices are of opinion that there is convincing evidence
on record to show that appellant was the victim of mistrial and, therefore, the
case should be heard again in the trial court, by setting aside the appealed
judgment. Other Justices believe that the disturbances complained of have not
affected the freedom of appellant to properly defend himself and to plead guilty
or not guilty, and his plea upon which the trial court rendered judgment was
entered by him voluntarily.

Because no one side could muster a decisive majority, the
undersigned, who was one among those who upheld appellant’s contention as to
mistrial due to mob violence, decided to break the deadlock by joining the side
which will uphold the plea of guilty of the appellant, so as to constitute a
majority that would convict appellant by modifying the penalty from death to
that of reclusion perpetua.

In making this shift, we have carefully considered the
contentions in appellant’s brief and came to the conclusion that appellant does
not pretend that he is innocent of the crime of treason for which he is accused.
He complains of mistrial because had it not been for it he would not have been
sentenced to death, his argument being premised on an unmistakable admission of
his guilt, and, therefore, his main purpose in securing a new trial is to escape
the penalty of death. In view of the division of opinion among the members of
this Court death cannot be imposed on appellant. Appellant’s purpose in seeking
a new trial is attained in a more speedy and direct way by rendering this
decision which substitutes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to that of
death.

A new trial may satisfy technical requirements of procedure,
but with it appellant will not attain better objective than the modification of
penalty decreed in this decision. The machinery of justice should not be clogged
by empty and useless technicalities. These should not be allowed to hamper
speedy justice, when the substantial rights of the parties are duly guaranteed
and protected.

Wnerefore, finding appellant criminally responsible of treason,
upon the facts stated in the counts of the amended information to which he
pleaded guilty, he is sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death
and, with this modification, the appealed judgment is affirmed.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

---

DISSENTING

TUASON, J.:

I vote to remand this case for a new trial.

It is clear beyond dispute that the defendant’s plea of guilty
was forced by fear of a mob. Spirit of mob violence asserted itself during
several-day trial from beginning to end. It obtained outside and inside the
court, at times in the presence of the judges. A large and an unruly crowd it
was, armed with clubs, knives, stones, etc., which congregated in and about the
courthouse and which not only threatened the accused but actually inflicted
physical injuries on him arid other treason indictees. One of these was laid in
bed as a result of the assault.

It was a sad commentary on the good sense of the judges and the
law officers in charge of the prisoner that they seem to have looked upon the
demonstrations with complacency, lifting not a finger to stop them. It fell upon
the lot of two American army officers, who happened to be present in the
courtroom at one stage of the trial, to quell the mob and protect the accused,
from its fury. But what is more serious is that the court seems to have been
swayed by the demonstrations, if its decision in a sister case, People vs.
Antonio Racaza ,^[1] one of the victims of
the same mob, is any indication. The court in that case noted with apparent
approval and sympathy the crowd’s “visible indignation with an eager desire that
the collaborators be dealt with by the court of justice without mercy.” And
without mercy, they were dealt with.

Thus the appellant was denied freedom to plead. His conviction
under the circumstances is illegal and void. It was nullified by mental fear and
terror of uncontrolled attacks. The vilest of criminals under the Constitution
are entitled to defend themselves against accusation for crime under an
atmosphere free from menaces of harm, undue passion and emotionalism, and before
judges unafraid and uninfluenced by outside clamor or pressure. The decision in
this case would deprive the appellant of his life or liberty without due process
of law. There is no due process when there is actual interference with the court
of justice and the defendant is deprived of a fair ana impartial trial according
to law. The accused is entitled to something more than the mere pretense of a
trial.

I take particular exception, to the proposition that simply
because the court believes the appellant is guilty anyway and a new trial would
produce the same result, irregularities of the kind above noted should be
overlooked for the sake of speedy justice. The constitutional guarantee against
punishment for crime without due process of law admits of no exception. It can
not be sacrificed upon the altar of expediency or speedy justice or upon any
other consideration. This right lies at the foundation of human rights and
democratic institutions to which the Constitution is dedicated.

Moreover, the right to speedy trial is essentially alright of
accused. If an accused, on trial for his life, fully aware of the delay which a
new hearing would entail, asks for such hearing, that is his concern, not the
court’s. This right is not an “empty and useless technicality” to be cast aside
when it gets in the way “to clog the machinery of justice,” as if there could be
justice without the observance of this “empty and useless technicality;” as
though, in other words, the machinery of justice was devised for the benefit of
the prosecution, of the court, or of the government, and not of the accused.

This case is of far-reaching importance. It not only affects
the appellant’s life and liberty but it sets a rule for future guidance of
courts and would be mobsters who would take the law into their hands out of the
hands of the court that tries them. This is one case in which this Court must
make known its condemnation in energetic terms of any interference with the
administration of justice, and must tell judges that it is their bounden duty to
initiate the suppression of disturbances directly intended to accomplish this
end. If courts are to maintain their dignity and self-respect, the
constitutional rights of accused preserved, and mob rule in this country nipped
in the bud.

Moran, C.J., and Paras, J., concur in the
foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

[1] 82 Phil., 623.