THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANASTACIO REYES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In the People’s Court Anastacio Reyes was accused of treason under
four counts. During the trial the prosecution presented evidence only
on counts 1 and 3. After trial, he was found guilty only of count No. 3
and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of Ten thousand pesos P10,000, and to pay the costs. He is appealing from that decision.

Before the war Anastacio Reyes joined the Sakdal party which was
later converted into the Ganap party. When the Japanese forces arrived
in Rizal province, he joined the Japanese Kempei Tai or military
police, wore blue denim as a uniform together with his fellow Filipino
soldiers who had joined the Japanese military police, carried a
revolver and used to accompany Japanese patrols and raiding parties. In
open court he admitted that he was then and is now a Filipino citizen.

For purposes of reference we are reproducing the third count;

“3.—In or about July 1942, in Taytay, Rizal, said
accused did then and there cooperate in the capture of Santiago
Morales, Antonio Candelaria, Antonio La Torre, Benjamin Santos, Agustin
Andres, Rosendo Marcelo, Santos Francisco and the killing of Teofilo
Molano for guerrilla activities.”

Although the People’s Court found that the accused participated in
the arrest of Santiago Morales, Antonio Candelaria, Antonio La Torre,
Benjamin Santos, Agustin Andres, Rosendo Marcelo and Santos Francisco, we are inclined to agree with the Solicitor General in his contention
that there is no sufficient proof of the participation of the accused
in the arrest of the seven persons above-mentioned, with the exception
of Rosendo Marcelo and Santos Francisco, and that, furthermore,
complying with the two-witness rule in treason cases, the arrest of
Rosendo Marcelo only, can be charged against the appellant. Santos
Francisco was the only witness who testified as to his own arrest,
which was effected by four Japanese soldiers and seven Filipinos,
including appellant Reyes, belonging to the United Nippon, an
association organized to aid the Japanese. The raiding party took
Santos Francisco to the house of Rosendo Marcelo for the latter was
also arrested by the same raiding party. This arrest of Rosendo Marcelo
was testified to by both Santos Francisco and Rosendo Marcelo, thereby
complying with the two-witness rule. Francisco and Marcelo were taken
to the Municipal building of Taytay, where they found other prisoners,
the five men already mentioned, namely: Santiago Morales, Antonio
Candelaria, Antonio La Torre, Benjamin Santos and Agustin Andres. From
the presidencia of Taytay the seven prisoners were taken in a
truck to the Kempei Tai Headquarters in Pasig and later to the
municipal jail where they were kept; and it is said that for about a
week they were given no food.

After about two months confinement the seven prisoners were taken
to the barrio of Munson, to a place where a big hole had already been
dug. There, five of the prisoners were executed by the Japanese by
gunfire. Only Santos Francisco and Rosendo Marcelo were spared and,
after being lectured to and threatened that if they did not keep away
from the guerrillas, they would suffer the same fate as their fellow
prisoners, they were released. But there is no proof that the accused
was present and formed part of the Japanese force that did the killing.

There is no question that Santos and Marcelo were arrested because
they were then guerrillas and suspected if not known as such. Previous
to their arrest, a Japanese patrol had a skirmish with guerrilla forces
and the Japanese were able to confiscate a list of guerrilla members
where the names of Santos and Marcelo appeared. There is also evidence
to show that sometime in July, 1942, about thirty Filipino soldiers,
including defendants Reyes, all members of the United Nippon, went to
the barrio of Bangyad, Taytay, to arrest some guerrillas who were
supposed to be buying fish. They were surrounded but one named Teofilo
Molano tried to escape. He was fired upon and killed. The killing of
Molano was fully established by several witnesses but the presence of
the accused on that occasion is established only by a written statement
(Exhibit G) given before the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) of the
United States Army, wherein he stated that he formed part of the patrol
and that they fired at Molano because he was trying to escape. The
Office of the Solicitor General claims that although this does not
satisfy the two-witness rule, nevertheless, it should be considered
inasmuch as this does not in fact prove treason but only serves to
aggravate the commission thereof.

The accused puts up the defense of alibi, claiming that
during the whole year of 1942, he was employed in the carriage factory
of his employer Latino Guevarra and the latter was introduced to
support said theory. The People’s Court rightly rejected this claim not
only because the witnesses for the prosecution assured the court that
they had seen the accused acting as a member of the Japanese Military
Police and helping said organization in the apprehension of Filipino
guerrillas, but also because witness Guevarra himself in his statement
(Exhibit H) stated therein that when the Japanese occupied Pasig, the
accused left the factory and joined the Japanese Kempei Tai and even
demanded the surrender of and confiscated the pistol which Guevarra
kept. Furthermore, some of the very witnesses presented by the defense
partly corroborated the theory of the prosecution about appellant’s
adherence to the Japanese and his part in apprehending guerrillas. Juan
Antonio, a major in the Marking Fil-American Guerrilla, testifying for
the defense, said that appellant Reyes was a Makapili, and Serafin
Hernandez, a First Lieutenant of the ROTC Hunders of the underground
movement, said that he (Hernandez) being a guerrilla, avoided the
accused because he feared him.

In conclusion, we find the guilt of the accused established beyond
reasonable doubt. Although the Solicitor General recommends the
imposition of the death penalty, we agree with the People’s Court that
said accused will be sufficiently punished with the penalty of
reclusion perpetua imposed upon him. The decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

MORAN, C. J.:

Mr. Justice Paras and Mr. Justice Padilla voted for affirmance.