G.R. No. L-2731 and 2732. May 19, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RUBEN VICTORIANO (ALIAS VICKS) ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
OZAETA, J.:
Ferrer, who was still at large, were accused in two separate cases
before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga of the murder of Pio
Silos, Jr. and Damaso Luanzon, committed on the 22d day of July, 1944,
in the sitio of Sibul, barrio of Manibaug-Pasig, municipality of Porac,
Pampanga. After a joint trial of the two cases His Honor Judge Antonio
G. Lucero found them guilty and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua in each case and to indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased in the sum of P2,000.
In July, 1944, one Pablo Ayson lost certain cawas or vats
and suspected Pio Silos, Jr. and Damaso Luanzon as the thieves because
they had previously sought to buy said vats but could not agree with
him as to the price. Eladio Ayson, son of Pablo, reported to Fernando
Tolentino, a Huk chief ©f the barrio, that Pio Silos, Jr. and Damaso
Luanzon had stolen his father’s vats and asked for their apprehension.
One dark night shortly before July 22, 1944, two unknown men called at
the house of Pio Silos, Sr., looking for Pio Silos, Jr. and Damaso
Luanzon, who were not then at home.
At about 8:00 p.m., on July 22, 1944, Huk Esteban Basilio alias Rustin and Huk Segundo Serrano alias
Ferrer, respectively, brought Manuel Austria and Lucerio Arceo to an
isolated spot in the sitio of Sibul, where they were made to dig a
grave. Later on the appellants Ruben Victoriano and Pacifico Pineda
arrived at the same spot, dragging with them Damaso Luanzon with his
hands tied behind his back. They interrogated Damaso Luanzon then and
there as to whether he had stolen Pablo Ayson’s vats and when he denied
the imputation the appellants hit him with their fists. Pulling Damaso
to the edge of the pit and telling him to kneel down and pray, Pacifico
Pineda again asked him about Ayson’s cawas. On receiving the
same negative answer, Segundo Serrano by order of Pacifico Pineda,
struck Damaso Luanzon at the nape with an iron bar, causing him to fall
on his face unconscious. Pacifico and Segundo raised him by the
shoulders while Ruben and Pacifico once more asked him about the vats.
Damaso still unconscious could not answer; so Segundo, on order of
Pacifico, hit him several times on the nape with the iron bar.
Afterwards Pacifico and Segundo pushed Bamaso into the pit as Ruben
Victoriano looked on.
After thus disposing of Damaso Luanzon, Pacifico Pineda whistled
and Huks Felix Guevara, Esteban Basilio and Pedro Torres appeared with
Pio Silos, Jr. whose hands were also tied behind his back. Pacifico,
Segundo and Ruben asked Pio Silos, Jr. also about Ayson’s vats and he,
like Bamaso, denied having stolen them. Thereupon he was boxed
repeatedly on the stomach by Ruben, Pacifico, Felix Guevara and Esteban
Basilio until he fell. Pacifico Pineda then ordered Ruben Victoriano to
drag the limp form of Pio Silos, Jr. to the pit. Ruben asked the help
of Manuel Austria and Lucerio Arceo, but as these two were slow in
lending assistance, Pacifico Pineda and Segundo Serrano themselves
threw the body of Pio Silos, Jr. into the pit. Pacifico Pineda then
commanded the grave-diggers Manuel Austria and Lucerio Arceo to cover
the hole, thus burying the two victims who were still breathing at that
time. After that Pacifico allowed Austria and Arceo to go home,
threatening to kill them should they reveal the incident.
On June 19, 1946, at the indication of Lucerio Arceo the bodies of
the victims were exhumed and properly identified by their relatives in
company with members of the constabulary.
When investigated by Lt. Felicisirao Mostajo on June 26, 1946,
appellant Ruben Victoriano subscribed to an affidavit before the
municipal mayor of Porac, stating in substance that in the year 1944
Eladio Ayson complained to Fernando Tolentino that Pio Silos, Jr. and
Damaso, Luanzon had stolen his cawas; that by order of
Tolentino affiant, with Pacifico Pineda, Pedro Torres, Esteban Basillo
and many others, looked for Pio Silos, Jr. and Daraaso Luanzon, whom
they found near the small bridge at barrio Manibaug-Pasig and whoa they
brought to Sibul by order of Tolentino; that affiants companions took
Daraaso Luanzon to a distance of about 100 yards away, while affiant
held and retained Pio Silos, Jr«; that while affiant was guarding Pio
Silos, Jr., he could hear his companions raining blows on Damaso
Luanzon; that later Pacifico Pineda came and told affiant “to bring Pio
Silos, Jr. to the spot where they killed Damaso Luanzon”; that on
reaching the spot, “they ordered me to hit him also, otherwise they
would kill me, so I gave him fistic blows. After that I moved away
about 5 meters from them. I heard that they were constantly beating him
up * * *. Later I heard Pacifico Pineda ordering the rest to drop Pio
Silos, Jr. in the pit. After a lapse of 20 minutes I moved closer to
the pit and saw that they had Pio Silos, Jr. covered in the pit
already. They told me that Damaso Luanzon’s body was also in the same
pit.”
We agree with the trial judge and the Solicitor General that the
guilt of the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Aside
from Ruben Victoriano’s confession, the testimony of the grave-diggers
Manuel Austria and Lucerio Areeo has not been overcome by the evidence
for the defense.
The appellants admitted being members of the Hukbalahap
organization. Appellant Ruben Victoriano claimed before the trial court
that he was merely a passive spectator at the killing of Pio Silos, Jr.
and that it was the accused Segundo Serrano alias Ferrer (who was still
at large) that did the killing.
Appellant Pacifico Pineda admitted that, as a Huk, Fernando
Tolentino alias Berting alias Magellan, was his chief, but denied
having taken part in the arrest and killing of Pio Silos, Jr. and
Damaso Luanzon, claiming that on July 22, 1944, he was in his house,
sick with malaria; and in that he was corroborated by his co-appellant
Ruben Victoriano.
We think the trial court committed no error in not believing appellants’ pretensions.
As a last resort, appellants invoked Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation
No. 8 of September 7, 1943» and Huk Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 of June
21, 1948.
In overruling the defense based on Amnesty Proclamation No. 8, Judge Lucero said:
“A careful scrutiny of the evidence shows that the
espionage activities ascribed to the two victims are totally
incredible. There is direct proof to the fact that the deceased and
their families continued to reside in Manibaug, Porac, Pampanga, up to
the time they were kidnapped. If the deceased were Japanese spies,
their elemental instinct of self-preservation would counsel them to
move their residence to places within reach of the protection of their
Japanese masters, but they did not. Tomas Poy Lorenzo, first cousin to
Pacifico Pineda, declared that the two deceased apprehended him
sometime in 1943 in company with Japanese soldiers as a result of his
refusal to sell the steel rails which formed part of his dugout. Having
been released on November 1, 1943 and having joined the guerrillas
thereafter it appears peculiar why that Tomas Poy Lorenzo had failed to
report these two spies to the guerrillas. The testimony of Bernardo
Pañgilinan, who accused the victims of being Jap spies and of being
“buy and sell” men, also failed to convince us for he could not mention
the name of even one individual from whom the victims bought war
materials even by hearsay information. It may be mentioned that these
two witnesses are very close relatives of Pacifico Pineda. On the other
hand the testimony of Mr. Dominador Chantengco, occupation mayor of
Porac and at present a Civilian Investigator of the U. S. Army, carries
weight and conviction. There is probative value in his statement to.
the effect that, if the victims were “buy and sell” men, he would not
fail to notice their collaboration activities for he was an
intelligence officer of the USAFFE guerrillas since August 5, 1942,
aside being the town mayor of Porac. In a small community like the town
of Porac those persons who engaged in the buying and selling of war
materials were easily identified for the nature of their trade
compelled them to contact people and to search for the necessary
articles. Mr. Chantengco mentioned in Court the names of several living
people who engaged in this kind of business during the Japanese
occupation in Porac, but the names of the herein victims were
conspicuous by their absence. It is a matter within the judicial
cognizance that the town of Porac and its barrios were under the full
control of the Huks during the occupation and these two victims, had
they been engaged in this nefarious trade, would certainly not remain
in a place where the environment was not propitious for their safety
and security, especially so after their having executed Huks guerrillas
Aurelio Manalese and Modesto Gigante and their having arrested and
tortured Tomas Poy Lorenzo. Having accepted the evidence for-the
prosecution to the effect that the victims were not Japanese spies nor
collaborators, it must of necessity follow that the accused are not
entitled to amnesty under Proclamation No.8.”
Upon consideration of the proofs and briefs of both parties, we are
satisfied that the foregoing findings of the trial court are correct
and find no justification to disturb the same.
With regard to Amnesty Proclamation No. 76, we hold that the crimes
in question are not comprehended therein. Said proclamation declared
amnesty “in favor of the leaders and members of the association known
as Hukbalahap and Pambansang Kaisahan ng mga Magbubukid (PKM) who have
committed the crimes of rebellion, sedition, illegal association,
assault upon, resistance and disobedience to persons in authority,
and/or illegal possession of firearms.” Appellants have not been
prosecuted for any of said crimes. Moreover, in the case of People vs. Dizon Ramos, (84 Phil., 97) which is similar to the case a bar, we held:
“Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 was not intended for crimes committed
during the enemy occupation, which were already covered by Amnesty
Proclamation No. 3, but for crimes committed after the liberation by
members of the Hukbalahap and the PKM who were no longer engaged in the
resistance against the Japanese enemy but against the constituted
authorities of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, the
purpose of said amnesty being to bring about ‘the return of these
dissident and recalcitrant elements of our population to their homes
and the resumption by them of their lawful pursuits or occupations as
loyal and law-abiding citizens1 in order to ‘accelerate the
rehabilitation of this war-devastated country, restore peace and order,
and secure the welfare and happiness of their communities.’ ”
With the sole modification as to the amount of the indemnity which
is hereby raised from P2,000 to P6,000 in each case, and with the
understanding that the duration of the aggregate penalties shall not
exceed forty (40) years, the sentence appealed from is affirmed, with
costs.
Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
OZAETA, J.:
I hereby certify that Chief Justice Moran voted for the affirmation
of the sentence of the trial court with the modification above
indicated.