THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISIDRO PERALTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused was originally charged before the People’s Court with
the crime of treason on two (2) counts. When said Court was abolished,
the case was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte
where the crime is supposed to have been committed. Thereafter, the
information was amended twice with the result that the accused was
charged with treason on eleven (11) counts. No preliminary
investigation having been conducted with respect to the additional
counts, counsel for the accused objected to their inclusion in the
information, but his objection was over-ruled. After trial, the accused
was found guilty of counts 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10, and was sentenced to
suffer reclusion perpetua

to the accessories of the law, to pay a
fine of P10,000, and the costs. From this judgment the accused
appealed.

The only counts which in our opinion deserve consideration in
this appeal are counts 6 and 7. These two counts in substance are: On
the morning of August 25, 1942, at about 8:00 o’clock, while Lino
Ratuita and Segundo Rubio were taking a bath in a river east of the town
of Pasukin, Ilocos Norte, Isidro Peralta and five policemen arrived and
arrested them. Both were taken to the presidencia where Ratuita
was hit by Peralta with the butt of his rifle rendering him
unconscious. Peralta inflicted the same punishment on Rubio. Ratuita
and Rubio were then brought to Laoag, where Ratuita was placed in jail,
while Rubio, with his hands tied, was brought to the west and was never
seen since then. Ratuita was later released after giving Peralta the
sum of P200.

On a certain day in August, 1942, Pedro Balatico, a resident of
Pasukin, was sent for by Peralta and thrown into jail, refused food and
forbidden to urinate. The motive for Balatico’s arrest was the
supposition of Peralta that he killed a Japanese.

The count which refers to the arrest of Lino Ratuita and Pedro
Balatico appears supported by their own testimony and by that of Urbano
Guerrero and Monico Caldito. It appears that Lino Ratuita was arrested
because he used to give food to the guerrillas. Appellant contends that
the testimony of Ratuita is unworthy of credence because on
cross-examination he failed to state the names of the policemen who
accompanied the appellant at the time of his arrest in spite of the fact
that they were all residents of Pasukin like himself. This assertion
is not quite correct. When questioned on the matter, Ratuita
categorically answered that he knew at least two of the policemen who
arrested him, namely, Cariaga and Tagabilla. He even stated that when
they arrived at the presidencia, it was policeman Prospero
Ratuita who helped the appellant in maltreating him.

Counsel for appellant also assails the credibility of Pedro
Balatico for the simple reason that he failed to tell the year he was
arrested, as well as when he saw Lino Ratuita with his hands tied,
limiting his statement to the laconic assertion that it might have been
in 1942 or 1944. This is true. But, since eight years had elapsed
since then, it is not strange that the witness should commit some lapse
of memory.

It is true that Ureano Guerrero did not make mention of the
arrest and maltreatment of Lino Ratuita, but he bore testimony with
regard to the maltreatment of Pedro Balatico, which added to the
testimony of this victim, complies with the requirement of the
two-witness rule.

With regard to the testimony of Monico Caldito, which is also
assailed by counsel as in violation of the hearsay rule, it appears that
what Caldito testified as having learned through information refers to
other matters and not to the act of maltreatment of Lino Rautita as to
which he testified of his own personal knowledge.

With respect to count 7, which refers to the arrest and
subsequent disappearance of Segundo Rubio, the same appears
substantiated by the testimony of Lino Ratuita and Monico Caldito.

The defense of appellant merely consists of negative testimony.
He and his witnesses merely denied the imputation made against him by
the witnesses for the prosecution. Obviously, such negative testimony
cannot prevail over the clear and positive testimony of the prosecution
witnesses.

The observation made by the lower court in this matter is
significant. It says: “It is obvious that the question is one of
credibility. All the witnesses for the prosecution know the accused
Isidro Peralta very well, and almost all of them have known him since
their childhood, or because he is their townmate. x x x. The motives
alleged by the accused for the said witnesses to declare falsely against
him have not only been proven, but they have also been validly denied
and contradicted by the same witnesses. The denial and alibi of
the accused cannot prevail over the true and positive testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution, who actually saw, recognized and
identified the accused in the commission of the overt acts imputed to
him and proven at the trial, witnesses whose sincerity and truthfulness
the court has no reason to doubt.

As regards the alleged lack of preliminary investigation
relative to the additional counts, it suffices to state that this issue
has already been dismissed for lack of merit in G. R. No. L-3880
affecting the same accused.

Finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is
hereby affirmed, with costs.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo
and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Feria, J., did not take part.