G.R. No. L-743. October 11, 1949

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. POLICARPIO DUMAPIT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions October 11, 1949 PARAS, J.:


PARAS, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding
the appellant, Policarpio Dumapit, guilty of treason and imposing upon him the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, a fine of ten thousand pesos, and the
costs.

The information charged six counts, but the People’s Court
based appellant’s conviction only on counts IV and VI. Under count IV, the
appellant is alleged to have caused, with the aid of a group of Constabulary
soldiers, the arrest in barrio Balingahili, municipality of Botolan, province of
Zambales, in March, 1943, of eight guerrillas who were thereafter investigated
and tortured by the Constabulary and the Japanese and finally confined in the
provincial jail for about three months. Under count VI, the appellant is accused
of having issued on April 14, 1943, an order to Andres Atanasio, then Chief of
the Non-Christian Tribes Of the East Zambales Mountains in Macasan, Botolan,
Zambales, enjoining Andres Atanasio and his men to capture, dead or alive, all
Americans roaming in the forests of Zambales, and to report the result of his
mission to Onofre Dienzo, Superintendent of the Non-Christian Tribes of
Zambales.

Upon a careful review of the evidence, we are convinced that a
reversal of the appealed judgment is in order. As to count IV, we note that only
three of the alleged victims testified for the prosecution. They were Federico
Decag, Emilio Trapse and Catalino Dumangas. These, however, especially the last
two, admitted that they were investigated for, and suspected of, having burned
the heuse of Pedro Daco. (pp. 115, 131, 132 & 133, t. s. n.) Aside from the
fact that the appellant denied having had any hand in the arrest in question,
the circumstance remains that said arrest was effected as a result of the common
crime of arson. That the matter had no treasonous significance is shown by the
further fact that those arrested were confined for almost the whole period of
their detention in the provincial jail, and not in the Japanese garrison. If the
Japanese in some way intervened, it was undoubtedly because they had their own
eyes and ears even in civil offices and they merely wanted to be sure that any
disorder was not directed against their authority and safety. But said
intervention, without more, cannot be attributed to the voluntary invitation or
denunciation on the part of the appellant or the Constabulary. Appellant’s
alleged authorship of the arrest is inconsistent, moreover, with the affidavit
of Federico Decag (Exhibit I) to the effect that the appellant helped in having
him and his companions released.

Neither is the charge in count VI tenable. The lone witness for
the prosecution on this score is Andres Atanasio who had conspicuously supplied
what is sufficient to exculpate the appellant; for it is noteworthy that this
witness categorically testified that, as the appellant was handing over the
written order for the capture of all Americans, the appellant told him to
disregard the same. (p. 36, t. s. n.) The appellant admits having written the
order, but corroborates witness Andres Atanasio in the latter’s exculpatory
testimony.

The immediate background of the appellant is further refutation
of the likelihood that he had any treasonable intent. The appellant was before
the outbreak of the last war a corporal of the Manila Harbor Police and, upon
order of his chief Alejo Valdes, was even the one who was entrusted with the
task of taking the personal properties of the family of President Quezon to the
motorship EDIL. If the appellant had undergone police training and becon6
a member of the Constabulary during the Japanese occupation, it was at the
behest of the then mayor of Botolan (Juan M. Corom) and provincial governor
(Dantes), and with the knowledge and acquiescence of the guerrilla unit to which
the appellant belonged. Indeed, the appellant was known to the underground men
as “Ave Maria.”

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

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
Montemayor,
and Torres, JJ., concur.