THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PASTOR TAN MATEO (ALIAS NENE TAN MATEO), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Treason is the crime with which Pastor Tan Mateo is charged. He was tried,
found guilty and sentenced to suffer 15 years of reclusion temporal with the
accessories of the law, to pay a fine of P2,000 and costs. He appeals from the
judgment.

The appellant admitted that he if a native citizen of the Philippines (p. 3,
t.s.n.). The evidence for the prosecution shows that from June 1942 to March
1945, the appellant was employed in the Public Opinion Office is Dumaguete,
Oriental Negros, an organization headed by Teodorico Lajato, the purpose of
which, was to gather information for the Japanese Army about the movements and
activities of guerrillas in the province of Oriental Negros; that in the
discharge of the duties of his employment in said office, the appellant was
frequently seen in the house of Lajato, where the organization had its office,
located on Silliman Avenue (later on—18 October 1943—the office moved to W. A. Jones St.); that he used to go around the town of Dumaguete and its environs
observing and gathering information about guerrilla movements and activities;
and that he reported his findings to Teodorico Lajato or Major Bartolome
Soledad, the Chief of Police of Dumaguete (pp. 4-6, 10, 13-15, 19, 20, 26, 32,
43, 45-48, 51, 52, 61-63, 67, 68, 87, 88, t.s.n.); that on 28 March 1943, he
reported to Chief of Police Soledad that he suspected Alfonso Calubiran and
Antonio Chan of being in league with the guerrillas, because they used to come
to and go out of town without being bothered by the guerrillas, and suggested to
the Chief of Police that they be arrested and Investigated; that the Chief of
Police ordered his men to proceed to barrio Ubos, Dumaguete, to apprehend
Calubiran and Chan; that in compliance with the order, the appellant, sergeant
Tomas Merced, corporal Fausto Avila, and patrolmen Alejandro Lazola, Pedro
Gadiani, and Vicente Vancani or Pancayre went to said barrio in the evening of
that day, and there apprehended Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan, brought them
to town, imprisoned them for eight days in the Trade School building used as
jail, during which they investigated and ill-treated them, and afterwards
released them (pp. 6-10, 14-16, 18, 21-26, 28, 33, 36, 38, 44, 51, 53-57, 69,
70, 92, t.s.n.), that in the middle part of October 1944, the appellant,
together with patrolmen Avila and Peñero and another person, went to the house
of Pedro Adaya in barrio Ubos, Dumaguete, to look for Angeles Catan; that upon
learning that the latter was in the house of Pedro Adanza on Santa Catalina
street in the same barrio, they proceeded to that place and there found and
apprehended Catan and took him to the Kempei Tai headquarters at Silliman Hall
in Dumaguete (pp. 64-66, 73, 74, 75, t.s.n.).

The appellant admits that he was a provincial guard and also worked in the
public Opinion Office in 1943 (pp. 81-83, 86-88, t.s.n.), but denies that he was
an informer, that he caused the arrest of Calubiran and Chan, and that he went
with those who arrested Angeles Catan (p. 85, t.s.n.). The existence of the
Public Opinion Office in Dumaguete, Oriental Negros, during the enemy occupation
of that town, at the head of which was Teodorico Lajate, and the purpose for
which it was organized, to wits to gather information about and observe the
movements and activities of the guerrillas and to report on such observation and
information to the head of the organization, have been established by the
testimony of the following witnesses: Alejandro Lazola (pp. 5-7, 13-14, t.s.n.);
Antonio Chan (pp. 19-20; 27-28, 32, t.s.n.); Alfonso Calubiran (pp. 40, 45-47,
t.s.n.) Pedro Gadiani (pp. 51-52, t.s.n.); and Socorro Cariño (pp. 61-62,
t.s.n.).

Although appellant’s employment in the Public Opinion Office has been proved
by more than two witnesses, still the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the
two-witness rule. The witnesses testified to having seen the appellant in the
Public Opinion Office headquarters frequently, and also to having seen him go
around the town of Dumaguete and its environs, but not two of them refer to an
overt act or acts performed by the appellant on the same occasion. His
activities were seen by several witnesses on different occasions and each
witness testify to a particular act or activity. No single or particular act or
activity was testified to by two witnesses as having been performed by the
appellant on the same occasion.

But while this is true as to the activities of the appellant just referred
to, which may, however, be taken into consideration to prove adherence to the
enemy, the arrest of Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan, on 28 March 1943, in
which appellant took important part, was witnessed by more than two persons.
These are Alejandro Lazola, Antonio Chan, Alfonso Calubiran and Pedro Gadiani.
The arrest was ordered because the appellant imparted to the Chief of Police his
suspicion that Calubiran and Chan were in league with the guerrillas.
Appellant’s adherence to the enemy as shown by his activities already referred
to, and the motive behind the arrest of Calubiran and Chan, who were guerrilla
runners and engaged in procuring food and supplies for the guerrillas, in
watching the movements and ascertaining the strength of the Japanese garrison in
the locality where they were assigned to perform patrol duty, and reported their
observations and findings to Capt. Santiago Saroza, Lt. Francisco Saroza and
Sgt. Guilongo of the guerrillas or USAFFE (pp. 18, 21, 28, 31, 32, 37-41,
t.s.n.), render such arrest treasonous, an overt act, which gave aid and comfort
to the enemy, performed by the appellant in the evening of 28 March 1943 and
witnessed by more than two persons. These testified to it.

The evidence does not disclose the reason for the arrest of Angeles Catan in
the evening of on day in the middle of October 1944, in which the appellant also
took part. Pedro Adanza testified that after his arrest Catan returned to the
barrio the following day (p. 74, t.s.n.). According to Cariño and Adanza, Catan
is dead (pp. 65, 74, t.s.n.), and died after the arrival of the Americans (p. 75, t.s.n.). Appellant testified that Catan was a trusted undercover man of
Lajato (p. 85, t.s.n.). In these circumstances, the arrest of Catan cannot be
deemed and held treasonous.

The failure of the prosecution to prove the first count of the information by
two witnesses, as required by the two-witness rule, does not mollify in the
slightest degree the gravity of the offense committed by the appellant as
charged in the second count of the information and supported by the testimony of
at least two witnesses, The trial court took into consideration the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction. The penalty imposed upon the appellant
being within the range provided by law, the same should be as is affirmed, with
costs against him.

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

PARAS, J.:

I reserve my vote. The decision in the Laurel case is not yet final.

MORAN, C.J.:

Mr. Justice Hilado voted for the affirmance of the decision appealed
from.