PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. JOSE CATALUÑA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Cataluña

The Case

This is the prosecution of Jose Cataluña for the crime of treason, committed during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The People charged him in thirteen counts of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The case matters because it shows how our courts, in the aftermath of war, weighed the acts of a Filipino official who served the occupation government, and because it states a hard rule: good deeds done elsewhere do not erase a single act of treason.

Procedural History

Cataluña was charged before the People's Court with treason in thirteen counts. After the People's Court was abolished, the case was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Isabela. After trial, that court found him guilty of Counts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ricardo Martinez in the sum of 6,000 pesos, to pay a fine of 10,000 pesos, and the costs. Cataluña appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Facts

Cataluña was 51 years old, married, a resident of Gamu, Isabela, and a native born citizen of the Philippines, as he himself admitted. Before the war he was a municipal councilor of San Mariano, Isabela. On January 8, 1943, the occupation authorities appointed him municipal mayor of Gamu, and he held that office until January 29, 1945. Most of the acts charged against him were committed while he was mayor.

As acts of adherence to the enemy, the evidence showed that he frequently accompanied Japanese soldiers, armed with a revolver and a saber and wearing a Japanese Army cap, helping arrest guerrillas and guerrilla sympathizers and commandeering food from barrio residents for the Japanese forces. In April 1943 he detained Agaton Portera and forced him to serve as a carrier for thirty Japanese soldiers, slapping him and warning that he would be killed if he refused. In Palanan he ordered Portera to gather rice and salt for the soldiers, and he organized dancing parties for the Japanese, assigning one girl to each soldier afterward. In March 1943 he gathered the people of barrio Guibang and forced Salvador Nieto to accept the post of barrio lieutenant by threatening him with water cure and calling him a guerrilla; a month later he accepted Nieto's resignation in exchange for 50 pesos. At that same gathering he asked the people to give eggs and rice to the Japanese through him, saying the Americans would never return and that the country would be governed by the Imperial Japanese Government.

In December 1942, suspecting that Ricardo Martinez was a guerrilla, he arrested him with the help of two Japanese soldiers and tortured him to death, burying him in the cemetery of Gamu. Under Count 8, he organized the Invincible Youth of Gamu, whose members he ordered to guard the Japanese garrison and patrol with Japanese soldiers in search of guerrillas; those who refused were detained without food for a day and threatened with worse punishment. Under Count 9, on November 8, 1944, he and three Japanese soldiers apprehended Felipe de la Cruz as a guerrilla suspect, and he was never seen again. Under Count 11, on February 26, 1945, he and two Japanese soldiers arrested Vicente Carag, a Usaffe officer, and his wife Rosa Castillejo de Carag, and Carag was tortured to death at the garrison. Under Count 12, on March 2, 1945, he, six Japanese soldiers, and the chief of police arrested and tortured several men of barrio Guibang as guerrilla suspects, and after the torture they were beheaded. Under Count 13, in March 1945, he and thirty Japanese soldiers raided the barrio of Upi, arrested several residents, and took them to the garrison where they were tortured and executed.

The defendant denied the charges. The Court noted that no motive was shown why the many prosecution witnesses would testify falsely in so serious a matter, and that it was beyond belief that they all conspired to convict him. The defense presented witnesses to prove that he had helped some guerrillas and furnished them supplies, but the Court held that these acts, even if true, constituted neither an exempting nor a mitigating circumstance.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty of treason under the counts proven by at least two witnesses to each overt act.
• Whether or not the accused's acts of helping and supplying guerrillas constitute a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance that would relieve him of liability or reduce his penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional requirement of two witnesses to each overt act of treason, as stated in the Bill of Rights then in force:

No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

This provision governs the proof of treason: each overt act must be established by the testimony of two witnesses to that same act, which is why the evidence on Counts 1, 2, and 3 was considered only as proof of adherence to the enemy, for lack of two witnesses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction on Counts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Each of these counts was established by the required number of witnesses to the same overt act: Count 8 by four witnesses, Count 9 by two witnesses, Count 11 by two witnesses, Count 12 by four witnesses, and Count 13 by two witnesses. The Court found the testimony credible and noted that no motive was shown for the witnesses to testify falsely. As to Counts 1, 2, and 3, the evidence was considered only as proof of adherence to the enemy, for lack of two witnesses.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused's acts of helping and supplying guerrillas, assuming them to be true, do not constitute either an exempting or a mitigating circumstance. The Court adopted the rule laid down in an earlier treason case:

The performance of righteous actions, no matter how meritorious they may be, is not a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance in the commission of wrongs, and although appellant has saved the lives of a thousand and one persons, if he had caused the killing of a single human being to give aid and comfort to the enemy, he is, nonetheless, a traitor.

The Court therefore affirmed the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant.

Doctrine

Treason requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or a confession in open court. Evidence that does not meet this two-witness requirement cannot support a conviction for that overt act, though it may be considered as proof of adherence to the enemy.

Good deeds are not a defense to treason. The performance of righteous actions, however meritorious, is not a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance; a single act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy makes one a traitor, regardless of how many lives one may have saved.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Jose Cataluña of treason on Counts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of Ricardo Martinez in the sum of 6,000 pesos, to pay a fine of 10,000 pesos, and the costs.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that righteous actions, no matter how meritorious, are not a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance, and one who causes the killing of a single human being to give aid and comfort to the enemy is nonetheless a traitor. Examiners use this case to test the two-witness rule for treason and the principle that good deeds do not offset a single act of adherence to the enemy.