G.R. No. L-2162. September 30, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. BENITO TUASON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
PADILLA, J.:
and after trial was found guilty and sentenced to suffer 20 years of
reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P7,000 and costs. He appeals from
said judgment.
In the morning of 21 November 1944, about 7 o’clock, in the
barrio of Ugong, municipality of Pasig, province of Rizal, the appellant and
several companions, some of them carrying rifles, arrested Miguel Castillo,
Candido Cruz, one Daniel, and another unidentified individual. After their
arrest, Miguel Castillo, Candido Cruz and the other two have not been seen
again.
In the morning of 24 November 1944 in the same barrio, the
appellant and several Japanese and Filipino companions, who were known to be
Makapilis, all armed with rifles and pistols, arrested Bibiano Azores, Eustaquio
Santos, Elpidio Cruz, Valentin Cruz, Pedro Cruz, Rafael Bernardo, one
Victoriano, Rafael Raymundo, Daniel Santos, Cirilo Jose and Salvador San Pedro,
who were suspected of being guerrillas. After their arrest they were exposed to
the sun, tortured, tied and loaded in a banca. Since their arrest they have not
been seen again, except Valentin Cruz and Rafael Raymundo who were released.
On 10 December 1944, about 8 o’clock in the evening, the
appellant and several other persons, known to be Makapilis, all carrying
firearms, arrested Pedro Natividad because they suspected him to be a guerrilla.
The appellant and his companions demanded the surrender of the key to the
wardrobe for the avowed purpose of searching for firearms. Instead, they found
jewelry, clothing and money which they took away. The value of the jewelry was
P500. Pedro Natividad was brought to the house of the mayor used as garrison and
there maltreated. That was the last time he was seen by his wife. The following
morning Teodora Silverio saw Pedro Natividad and several companions with swollen
faces being dragged away. He could hardly walk. That was the last time Teodora
Silverio saw her brother-in-law Pedro Natividad.
The appellant is a Filipino citizen. Several witnesses
testified that they had known the appellant to be a native of the Philippines,
born of Filipino parents. The appellant admits that he was a “Ganap.”
The arrest of Miguel Castillo and Candido Cruz was witnessed by
Leona Natividad and Rita Pascual. The house of the former is adjoining that of
the latter and the arrest was made in front of the house of Rita Pascual. The
arrest of Bibiano Azores, Eustaquio Santos and Elpidio Cruz is established by
the testimony of eyewitnesses Pedro Santos and Eleuteria Bautista, parents of
Eustaquio Santos, and Fidela Bonifacio, a neighbor of Eustaquio Santos and
Bibiano Azores. The arrest of Daniel Santos, Cirilo Jose and Salvador San Pedro
is proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses Leona Natividad and Fidela Bonifacio.
The latter saw the arrested persons at the ferry already tied. And finally, the
arrest of Pedro Natividad is proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses, his widow,
Ceferina Raymundo, and his son, Deogracias Natividad.
Counsel for the appellant contends that his client is not
guilty of treason but at most of illegal detention as that crime is defined in
article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no merit in the contention,
because the arrest of the victims constitutes not only adherence to the enemy
but also it gave him aid and, therefore, is treason as defined in article 114 of
the Revised Penal Code. It is clear that the crime committed by the appellant
does not come under the amnesty, because it was not in furtherance of the
resistance movement. It was just the reverse. The claim or theory that
sovereignty of the legitimate government was suspended during the occupation of
the country by the enemy has been rejected in this jurisdiction as unsound
principle of unwholesome consequences (Laurel vs. Misa, L-409, 44 Off. Gaz.,
1176[1]).
Appellant denies having taken part in the arrest of the
victims. He claims that from the 1st to the 20th day of December he was in
Manila. If that were true, the only arrest in which he could not have taken part
was that of Pedro Natividad in the morning of 10 December 1944. But the
testimony of Ceferina Raymundo, widow of Pedro Natividad, and that of his son,
Deogracias Natividad, prove beyond doubt that the appellant was with the
arresting party on that occasion. In another part of his testimony the appellant
also claims that he was in Manila on 21 November; but again the testimony of
Leona Natividad and Rita Pascual, in front of whose houses Miguel Castillo and
Candido Cruz were arrested, proves that the appellant was in Ugong on 21
November 1944.
Appellant admits that Rita Pascual entertained no ill-feeling
towards him but believes that Leona Natividad was resentful, because when she
requested him to find means by which her husband could be released, the
appellant told her that he knew no Japanese at that time. If that were a fact,
Leona Natividad could not feel resentful as there was no reason for such
resentment. It was not sufficient motive for her to testify against the
appellant. The imputation to Fidela Bonifacio being the same as that attributed
to Leona Natividad should also be disregarded. It was not sufficient motive for
her to incriminate the appellant.
Counts 12, 13 and 15 of the information filed against the
appellant have not been proved in accordance with the two-witness rule. The
testimony of Leona Natividad and that of Fidela Bonifacio refer to two different
stages of the arrest.
Counts 8, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 22 of the information filed against
the appellant having been established by competent evidence and in accordance
with the two-witness rule, the judgment rendered by the People’s Court should
be, and the same is, affirmed. The principal penalty, however, is modified and
that of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, is imposed
upon the appellant, with costs against him.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason,
Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.
[1] 77 Phil., 856.