THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARTIN LAUREL (ALIAS MARTINIANO LAUREL), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Martin Laurel was accused of treason in the People’s Court under 15
counts. He is appealing from the decision of said Court finding him
guilty under counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13, and sentencing him
to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P10,000, with costs, and
crediting him with one-half of the preventive imprisonment already
suffered by him.

Counts 11, 12, and 14 were abandoned by the prosecution while
counts 1, 10, and 15 were found by the lower court not to have been
substantiated. Besides appellant Laurel who was prosecuted in Criminal
Case No. 127 of the People’s Court, there were other persons accused in
several separate cases, such as Criminal Cases Nos. 128, 137, 143, 146,
and 148. A mass trial was held of all these cases including that of the
present appellant. There was one Special Prosecutor but there were
several defense attorneys for the different defendants. There being
many counts common to the different accused, they were coordinated in
“groups” wherein the evidence submitted in each group was to be used
against each of the several defendants concerned. Each witness could be
examined as many times as there were defendants involved in his
testimony. It was not however, a joint trial and so there was a
separate sentence or decision for each case and there were separate
appeals.

After a careful review of the evidence in the present case we find
the following facts to have been sufficiently established under the
two-witness rule in treason cases. At the beginning of the trial
(hearing of November 18, 1947), Martin Laurel admitted that he was a
Filipino citizen.

Under count 2, regarding the arrest of Wenceslao Carpena it was
established by the testimony of his widow Maxima Bato and his son
Reynaldo Carpena that early in the morning of November 16, 1944, Martin
Laurel in the company of a group of persons and a Japanese named
Maykawa, went to the house of Wenceslao Carpena in barrio Ibabaga, Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, arrested and tied his hands and legs and then took him to
the Japanese garrison in the poblacion where he was
thereafter killed. His remains were later exhumed from his grave behind
the Japanese garrison and identified by his wife by means of his
clothes.

Under count 3, regarding the arrest of Major Leopoldo F. Santos of
the USAFFE, it was proven by the testimonies of his widow Candelaria
Santos and his neighbor Pablo Alumno that early in the morning of
November 16, 1944, the appellant accompanied by some Japanese soldiers
and some Filipinos went to the house of Major Santos in barrio Pook,
Sta« Rosa to arrest him. Santos apprised of the coming of the raiding
party, . jumped out of the window and climbed an avocado tree in the
yard. Unable to find him in the house, the raiders, particularly
Martin Laurel and Higino Sigue looked for him downstairs and finally
found him up in the tree where he was even bayonetted in the leg by
Sigue. Santos was tied up, placed in a truck and taken to the Japanese
garrison at Sta. Rosa where he was later executed. On November 27,
1945. his remains were exhumed and identified by his wife by means of
his teeth and the wedding ring which he wore.

Under count 4, it was proven that on November 16, 1944, Martin
Laurel accompanied by several persons, all armed and dressed in
Japanese uniform went to the house of Roque Lazaga in barrio Balibago,
Sta. Rosa and arrested him, tied him up and took him.to the Japanese
garrison in the poblacion where he was later killed. His
remains were later found and identified by his wife through his
clothing and his teeth. life witnesses who gave this evidence were
Julia llinsod and Teofila Lazaga, his widow and daughter, respectively.

Under count 5, the People’s Court found and we also find that early
in the morning of November 16, 1944, appellant Martin Laurel
accompanied by some Filipinos and a Japanese, went to the house of
Adolfo Nepomuceno in calle Bonifacio, municipality of Sta. Rosa,
Laguna, arrested him and after tying his hands and legs, loaded him in
a truck and took him to the Japanese garrison where he was later
executed. Later -when the guerrillas arrived in Sta. Rosa, his remains
were exhumed and duly identified by his wife because of his teeth. Two
witnesses testified under this count, namely, his widow Bibiana
Nepomuceno and his neighbor Lorenzo Tiongco.

Under count 6, regarding the arrest of the Alumno brothers, it has
been established that early in ths morning of November 16, 1944, seven
persons, among them Martin Laurel, raided the house of Antonio Alumno
and his brother Jurado Alumno, four of the raiders passing through the
window. They tied the Alumno brothers and took them to the Japanese
garrison in the poblacion where they were later killed. Their arrest
was testified to by Sancha Sayao, widow of Antonio, and Inocencio
Alumno, father of the two brothers, while their death was testified to
by Florencio Malapitan, a fellow prisoner who actually saw their bodies
after they ,were killed by the Japanese behind the garrison.

Under count 7, the evidence shows that about November 24, 1944,
appellant Martin Laurel accompanied by several Filipinos all dressed in
Japanese uniform, apparently commanded by a Japanese named Maykawa,
went to the house of Emiliano Concepcion in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, took him
down from his house and carried him to the Japanese garrison where he
was later killed. His remains were later exhumed from his grave behind
the Japanese garrison and were identified by his wife. Amanda Batugan,
his widow and Francisco Dichoso, Sgt. of police, testified under this
count. There is a slight discrepancy between the testimony of these two
witnesses, Amanda claiming that the arrest of her husband was effected
on November 24, 1944, of October while Dichoso said that it was between
the 23rd or 24th of October of the same year. We however, believe that
the difference in dates is not very material. We are satisfied that the
arrest of Emiliano Concepcion and his subsequent execution was
sufficiently established although the, two witnesses testifying under
this count may have been mistaken as to the exact date it occurred.

Under count 8, the evidence shows that early in the morning of
November 24, 1944. a raiding party composed of at least two Japanese
and several Filipinos, among them appellant Martin Laurel, raided the
house of Lucio Aguilar in barrio Tagapo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, apprehended
and tied him up, loaded him in a truck and took him to the Japanese
garrison in the poblacion where he was later killed. His remains were
later exhumed and identified by his wife through his teeth, Aguilar was
evidently arrested and killed because of his resistance activities.
During the raid, although appellant Martin Laurel did not go up the
house, he remained near the truck because he was the one driving it.
Under this count, Rosa Alinsod and Federico Aguilar, widow and son
respectively of Lucio, testified.

Under count 9, it was proven that early in the morning of November
24, 1944, Martin Laurel and several other persons went up the house of
Aurelio Lazarte in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, brought him down, tied him up and
then took him to the Japanese garrison where he was later executed. He
was suspected of being a guerrilla and of having been listening to the
radio broadcasts made by the allies. His remains were later exhumed and
identified by his wife. Beatriz Lobregas de Lazarte and Buenaventura
Lazarte, widow and brother respectively of the victim, testified under
this count. Florencio Malapitan also gave evidence as to the death of
Aurelio.

Under count 13, the evidence tends to show that on February 4,
1945. in barrio Aplaya, Sta. Rosa, while Augusto Ramirez was riding on
a bicycle he was apprehended by Martin Laurel and his companions, among
them Higino Sigue, Filemon Alitaptap and Tiburcio Alitaptap, tied up
and taken to a yard opposite the house of Buenaventura Dichoso, where
he was bayonetted to death by Martin Laurel and two of his companions.
Two witnesses testified under this count, namely, Buenaventura Dichoso
and Canuto Velandes. We, however, find material contradictions in the
testimonies of these two men. While Dichoso claims that Martin Laurel
was armed with a .45 caliber revolver; that he was the second in
bayonetting Ramirez, and that in doing so he had to get the rifle with
a fixed bayonet carried by Filemon Alitaptap, Canuto Velandes equally
assured the trial court that Laurel was armed not with a revolver but
with a rifle with which he bayonetted the deceased, and that Laurel was
the third and last to stab Ramirez, the first being Tiburcio Alitaptap,
and the second, Filemon Alitaptap. In view of the gravity of the
charge under this count, especially since it involves the alleged
killing of one suspected as a guerrilla, all of which would naturally
render more grave the charge of .treason, we feel that if is safer to
hold and to find as we do that this count has not been sufficiently
proven.

Under all the counts proven, there is evidence to show that in
making the raids and arrests, the appellant was almost invariably
dressed in a Makapili or Japanese uniform, and that the persons
arrested were suspected as guerrillas. Moreover, oftentimes, the
raiders including the defendant were accompanied or commanded by
Japanese.

Counsel for the appellant in his brief asserts that the witnesses
for the prosecution have incurred in material contradictions, although
he fails to point out in what those alleged contradictions consist. In
spite of said failure, we have taken plans to examine carefully the
testimonies of the witnesses for the government and with the exception
of count 13 which we find not to have been sufficiently proven because
of the material contradictions incurred in by the witnesses therein, we
find that as regards the witnesses on the other counts proven, such
contradictions are not sufficient to impair their testimonies.

Appellant’s counsel also contends that altho his client admitted
during the trial that he was a Filipino citizen, there is no showing
that he was a Filipino at the time that he committed the acts of
treason imputed to him. Aside from the presumption that if he was a
Filipino citizen at the time of the trial in 1947, he must have had the
same citizenship in 1944, it is a fact established by the very defense
that in 1944, or shortly before, he was a member of the Philippine
Constabulary, and according to the law, then and now (sec. 844, Rev.
Adm. Code), only citizens of the United States of America or of the
Philippines may join the Philippine Constabulary as officers or
enlisted men.

The defense of alibi put up by the appellant has in our opinion
been correctly rejected by the trial court. We quote two paragraphs of
the decision of the People’s Court on this point of alibi and as to the
credibility of the witnesses for both parties:

“The six witnesses presented in support of the defense of alibi,
instead of helping the accused, actually did him harm. They wantonly
contradicted themselves, and by the manner and way they testified, they
showed themselves to be unreliable and unworthy of trust.

“On the other hand, the naturalness, simplicity, and
straightforward manner in which the witnesses for the prosecution
testified, their composure and demeanor while on the witness-stand, the
logic and sequence of their declaration, all lend support and
conviction to the correctness and veracity of their testimony.”

In conclusion, we find the guilt of the appellant of the crime of
treason under counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to have been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The Solicitor General recommends the
confirmation of the sentence of the court below. Acting upon said
recommendation, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs.

Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, and Tuason JJ., concur.