THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TEODORO BARRAMEDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case is here on appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Batangas which found appellant Teodoro Barrameda guilty of treason on four
counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000 with
costs. The defendant was originally charged before the People’s Court, with
treason under ten counts. At the trial, however, the prosecution presented
evidence only on counts 1, 3, 6 and 7.

There is no doubt that the appellant was and has always been a Filipino
citizen. His personal record (Exhibit A) prepared when he entered prison at
Muntinglupa, showing his personal circumstances which were undoubtedly furnished
by. the appellant himself and later checked by the identification officer of
that institution, shows that he is a Filipino. His marriage certificate (Exhibit
C) copied from the record? of the Parish of Lipa, certifying to his marriage to
one Maria Ysaga, on February 6, 1922, shows that he was a native of Pili, Ambos
Camarines, resident of Lipa, Batangas, and the son of Angel Barramed.a and
Hilaria Versa. Furthermore, he served as a policeman in Lipa, Batangas from 1931
to 1933 and after that he was a Constabulary soldier for about three years.
Enlistment and service in the Constabulary, at least presupposes and requires
citizenship of the United States or of the Philippine Islands and it is evident
that the appellant has never been a U. S. citizen.

Several witnesses for the Government testified as to the adherence of the
defendant to the Japanese. Before the war he was a Ganap and during the
.Japanese occupation, he became a Makapili and later entered the service of the Japanese Military Police (Kempetai). As such member he used to accompany
Japanese patrols engaged in arresting guerrillas and guerrilla suspects. At one
time the defendant, tried to persuade and convince Pedro Africa to become a
Makapili and a spy for the Japanese, and that, later he was to be taken to the
market place of Buliran to point out the guerrillas, but Africa refused to be
such Japanese spy and hid himself. In Exhibit B, written statement of appellant
when he was investigated by the CIC, he admits his entering the service of the
Japanese Military Police.

Under count 3, it has been duly proven that about August 27, 1942, appellant
Barraraeda, accompanied by some Filipinos went to the house of Estanislao
Malabanan and his son Victor Malabanan in barrio Bagong Pook, Malvar, Batangas,
looking for four Americans, Estanislao told them, that he did not know anything
about those Americans, although in fact before that time he had lodged said
Americans in his house, and on the day in question he was hiding them in a sugar
cane plantation about 400 meters, away from hie house, and supplying them with
food. The defendant and his companions at first did not. believe the
protestations of ignorance of Estanislao but later they left him. The following
day, the appellant, this time accompanied by Japanese soldier, returned to the
house of Estanislao Malabanan. At a distance Estanislao and Victor saw the party
and immediately ran to where the four Americans were hiding. It seems however,
that the raiding party noted the movements of father and son and followed them,
in the meantime, firing shots. Following instructions of Estanislao and Victor,
the Americans hurried toward the river but they were so physically weak and
exhausted that they could, not move fast enough and the defendant and his
companions overtook the four Americans. The appellant tied their hands, after
which, they were loaded into a truck and taken to town. Thereafter, those four
Americans disappeared and were never heard from. The presumption is that they
were liquidated. At least two witnesses testified to the apprehension of the
Americans by the defendant, namely, Estanislao and his son Victor, both surnamed
Malabanan. Another witness Pablo Mendoza said that on the day the Americans were
captured, while he was repairing a car for Capt. Sakai, Chief of the Military
Police in Malvar, he saw and heard the accused conferring with Capt. Sakai,
saying that he would apprehend some Americans; that after said conference with
Capt. Sakai, the defendant and some Japanese soldiers left in a truck and in the
afternoon they returned with the four Americans. The Americans were investigated
by appellant and later lodged in the municipal jail; and when Mendoza and the
defendant were on their way home, the latter told him that those Americans were
to be killed, because they were against the government for which he was
working.

Under count 6, the prosecution proved that in the morning of February 6,
1945, appellant Barrameda accompanied by Servando Darin, Lucid Darin and Alberto
Darin appeared at the house of Pablo Mendoza in the barrio of Adya, Lipa,
Batangas, where they found Pedro Mendoza, his mother, and Margarito Umali.
Because the mother refused or failed to tell the defendant about the whereabouts
of her son Pablo, suspected as a guerrilla, the defendant tied her hands, too
her inside the house and set it on fire, and the house burned down completely,
presumably with the mother perishing in it. Not content with this atrocity the
appellant tied the hands of the son Pedro Mendoza and one Margarito Umali, both
blind, led them to the orchard and there bayoneted them to death. This was
testified to by Pablo Mendoza and Fermin Mendoza, brothers of Pedro, sons of the
woman who was presumably burned inside her house.

Under count 7, we find that in the afternoon of February 13, 1945 some
Japanese soldiers set fire to the houses in the barrio of Sto. Niño, Lipa,
Batangas. There is some evidence showing that defendant Barrameda took part in
this wholesale burning o£ the barrio, but only one witness Primitivo Mea
testified on this point. Thereafter, the residents of the barrio, especially the
men were rounded up by the soldiers and the defendant and taken near the Gordon
river where, with the exception of some who were able to escape or who pretended
to be dead, were killed with bolos, sabers, and bayonets. In particular,
Edilberto Cornejo was killed by means of bayonet thrusts Inflicted by the
appellant, and Santiago Mendoza, a guerrilla, had his face skinned (scalped) by
the appellant, Santiago dying as a result of said scalping, oeveral witnesses
testified on this point of mass slaughter, particularly the killing of Cornejo
and Mendoza, namely, Gervacio de Torres, who after being bayoneted pretended to
be dead, and Pedro Ulayao who at the very moment when the defendant was about to
take him to the place of slaughter, made a desperate effort to escape and
succeeded, altho in his flight he was machine-gunned and hit on the right
foot.

For the purpose of weakening the evidence for the Government the defendant
tried to place in doubt the sincerity and truthfulness of witnesses Pablo
Mendoza and Fermin Mendoza, claiming that before the war Pablo was his rival
when he (defendant) campaigned for the Ganap party, and that this may have
induced the two brothers to testify against him. But as the Solicitor General
well states, assuming that there existed such rivalry, it would be unreasonable
to presume that it was enough to impel the two brothers to falsely accuse
appellant of bayoneting their brother Pedro to death and burning to death their
mother in her own house.

It will be remembered that according to the evidence, in the burning of the
barrio of Sto. Niño and in the slaughter of many of its inhabitants, the
defendant participated, at least in the latter atrocity; he also killed Pedro
Mendoza and Margarito Umali; he also burned the house of the mother of the
Mendozas, after placing her Inside the building. All this took place during the
first half of February, 1945. In his attempt to prove that he could not have
taken part in the commission of these atrocities, the defendant corroborated by
three of his witnesses Federico Mercado, Marcelo Alllit, and Doroteo .Abarientos
told the court, that because of a gunshot wound received by him, he was confined
in a hospital in Los Baños from October 21, 1944 till after the end of February,
1945, Mercado and Alillt, claiming to be hospital attendants, testified that the
accused was confined in said hospital. Abarientos claiming to be a driver of the
Japanese Military Police, said that the defendant was wounded in 1944 and was
taken to the Los Baños Jiospital. Because of the material contradictions
incurred in by these witnesses, the trial court correctly refused to believe
their story and. preferred to give credit to the testimonies of1 the witnesses
for the prosecution, Moreover, one cannot blame the trial court in entertaining
doubts about the sincerity and truthfulness of appellant’s witnesses,
considering the fact that Federico Mercado, Marcelo Alillt and Doroteo
Abarientos were all accused of treason and detained at the Insular Prison with
the appellant and during their detention, have had all the opportunities and
reason for helping each other with their testimonies, Alillt and Abarientos have
already been convicted of treason and at the trial of Abarientos the appellant
testified in his favor but evidently, without any success.

We entertain not the least doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. His very
counsel de oficio who made an analysis of the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution and painstakingly stated them in detail in his
brief, agrees that his client Is guilty, although he prays that the sentence of
life imprisonment be affirmed. The Solicitor General however, recommends that
the penalty of death be imposed upon the appellant. Considering that the treason
committed by the appellant was accompanied, not only by the apprehension of
Americans (U.S. citizens) and their delivery to the Japanese forces which
evidently later executed them, but also by killing with his own hands not only
one but several Filipinos, his own countrymen, and that in addition to this, he
took part in the mass killing and slaughter of many other Filipinos, we are
constrained to agree to said recommendation. However unpleasant, even painful is
the compliance with our duty, we hereby impose upon the appellant Teodoro
Barrameda the penalty of death which will be carried, out on a day to be fixed
by the trial court within thirty (30) days after the return of the record of the
case to said court.

With the above modification, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed
with costs.

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

MORAN, C. J.:

Mr. Justice Paras and Mr. Justice Torres voted for the imposition of the
death penalty, but, on account of their being on leave at the time of the
promulgation of this opinion, their signatures do not appear herein.