THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISMAEL AQUIVIDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The defendant Ismael Aquivido, a Filipino citizen, is accused
of treason on three counts. Briefly, he is charged with having, in the month of
February, 1945, adhered and given aid and comfort to the enemy by joining the
Makapili organization in the City of San Pablo, Laguna, and cooperating with the
Japanese Army in the apprehension of guerrilla suspects, commandeering of
vehicles and supplies, burning of houses, and fleeing to the mountains and
fighting the American and guerrilla forces, and, in particular, in the rounding
up, on February 24, 1945, of over six hundred civilians in the said city and the
identification and segregation out of that group of a number of guerrilla
suspects, who were on that same day massacred by the Japanese soldiers.

There is no proof that defendant has taken part in the
commandeering of vehicles and supplies and in the burning of properties or that
he fled and fought with the Japanese forces.

But there is proof that before the war defendant was a Sakdal
and that during the Japanese occupation he confiscated the gun of one Jose
Lanuza. There is also proof of the existence of a Makapili branch in the city of
San Pablo and, although it does not appear how defendant got into that
organization, two witnesses testified that they knew him to be a Makapili.
Moreover, he was garbed like the other Makapilis and bore a firearm. He was also
seen at the Makapili headquarters consorting with members of that organization.
Once he was seen with some companions in a calesa, escorting two bound men to
headquarters.

The evidence further shows that, in the morning of February 24,
1945, the male residents of San Pablo City between the ages of 15 and 50 were
made to assemble in the church on the pretext that laborers would be recruited.
Once they were inside the edifice, the doors were closed and it was then
announced that only some would be selected. To that end they were made to march
out through the door of the adjoining seminary before a line of Japanese
soldiers and armed Makapilis. As they marched out, Agripino Calavia, a Makapili
chief, picked out the wanted men by patting them on the back and those thus
identified, or at least about seventy of them, were taken over by the Japanese
soldiers and later massacred.

These facts were established by the testimony of several of
those who were assembled in the church on that occasion and two of those who
were led to the place of massacre and bayoneted but managed to survive by
playing dead.

These same witnesses testified that on that occasion, as they
marched out through the door of the seminary, they saw defendant standing beside
or near Agripino Calavia, the man who was identifying the guerrilla suspects to
be turned over to the Japanese soldiers. Defendant, like the other Makapilis,
then had a firearm and wore khaki shirt, “maong” pants, leggings, and a Japanese
cap with visor.

Defendant did neither testify nor present proof in his
favor.

On the above evidence, a division of the People’s Court found
him guilty of treason and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay a fine of P10,000, and the
costs. From this sentence, defendant has appealed, alleging that—

“The First Division of the People’s Court erred in finding the
appellant guilty of treason notwithstanding that no one of the witnesses
testified to the overt acts alleged in the information, and presuming, contrary
to the two-witness rule, that the appellant affiliated with the organization
known as Makapili.”

Not all of the counts in the information were proved, it is
true. But we gather from the decision appealed from that the People’s Court
found it as a fact that defendant had identified himself with the Makapili
organization and had his part in the segregation of guerrilla suspects from the
large crowd that had gathered in the church on the day of the massacre. There is
ample proof to support this finding.

The existence of a Makapili organization in the city of San
Pablo with headquarters in the seminary is a fact sufficiently established by
the evidence and, besides, this Court has already held that the existence and
aims of the Makapili organization are matters of public notoriety that come
within judicial notice. Thus, in the case of People vs. Alitagtag, 45 Off. Gaz.,
715, this Court said:

“Judicial notice may be taken of the existence and purposes of
the Makapili organization as matters of public notoriety and interest and as
part of contemporary history. The courts knew as historical facts that the
Makapili association was organized under the sponsorship, direction and
supervision of the Japanese Army; that its aims were as stated in the preamble
and purposes of its by-laws, Exhibit A-1; that it was a body of men recruited
and armed chiefly for the purpose of warfare and placed itself at the disposal
of the enemy; that it received military training and instruction from Japanese
military personnel and was equipped by the invaders for combat; that Filipinos
joined that association and rendered service in furtherance of the above
objectives, fighting side by side with the Japanese, commandeering supplies for
the latter, and in many instances excelling their overlords in the commission of
atrocities against their own countrymen in a campaign to suppress what they and
the Japanese regarded as subersive acts.”

There is no proof of appellant’s formal induction into the
Makapili organization. But, as already stated, two witnesses testified that they
knew him to be a Makapili. Moreover, membership in that organization “need not
be established by direct testimony” but “may be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances.” (People vs. Alitagtag, supra.) In the present case
appellant’s identification with the Makapilis may be inferred from a combination
of circumstances which eloquently point to that fact. He was a Sakdal before the
war. Early during the occupation he helped carry out the enemy’s policy of
disarming the civilians by confiscating the revolver of one Jose Lanuza. He was
seen in a calesa conducting two bound men to the Makapili headquarters. He bore
firearm at a time when that privilege was denied to those who were not working
for the Japanese. He was with the other Makapilis in church on February 24,
1945, standing beside or near their local chief, Calavia, while the latter was
identifying those suspected of guerilla activities, who were later massacred by
the Japanese. He was then garbed like a Makapili.

There is no proof that he has taken part in rounding up the
male residents of the City of San Pablo and concentrating them in church. He was
not the one who identified the guerrilla suspects and he had no direct part in
their execution. But despite the conflict of testimony on the kind of firearm he
bore on that occasion, the evidence is quite clear that he was there with the
other Makapilis and was armed like them. Indeed, he was, according to the
witnesses, on the line of Makapilis posted at or near teh door of the seminary
through which those concentrated in the church were made to file out while the
chief Makapili picked out those suspected of guerilla activities. The obvious
inference from this fact is that he was there to help keep order or prevent
those thus picked out form escaping or putting up resistance. He was thus
identified with the task which the Makapili organization was then performing,
which was that of apprehending guerrilla suspects and turning them over to the
Japanese. It would be idle to suggest that he just happened to be in that place
by accident or as a mere spectator. He made no claim that he was merely an
innocent by-stander, for he did not testify at all.

Our conclusion, therefore, is that appellant has been proved to
be a Makapili and to have had a part in the carrying out of one of the main
purposes of the Makapili organization when on February 24, 1945, he joined the
Makapili escort at the door of the seminary for the obvious purpose of giving
armed support to the identification and apprehension of guerrilla suspects. This
shows that he has adhered to the enemy and given the latter aid and comfort. He
is therefore guilty of treason.

There being no reason to disturb the sentence appealed from,
the same is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon,
Padilla, Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.