THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AGRIPINO BAUTISTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the first division of the People’s Court
finding the appellant, Agripino Bautista, guilty of treason and sentencing him
to suffer reclusión perpetua and to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos,
with costs.

The information charges two counts, namely: (1) On December 26, 1942, the
appellant, being an enemy agent, informer and spy, caused the arrest to Aguilino
Inocencio and Remedios Tello — because of the latter’s guerrilla activities —
and their confinement and torture in the Far Eastern University Garrison
resulting in the disability for labor of Remedios Tello and in the death of
Aquilino Inoceneio. (2) From December, 1944, to the year 1945, the appellant was
a Makapili.

The People’s Court held that appellant’s membership in the Makapili
organization was not proved by the necessary two witnesses. Yet, ruling that the
connection was established by appellant’s admission Exhibit “A” made before the
CIC on March 2, 1945, said court took the same into account merely as an act of
adherence to the enemy. In the view adopted by us regarding the overt act
alleged under the first count, it is unnecessary to inquire into the sufficiency
of appellant’s admission (Exhibit “A”).

There can be no doubt that the appellant was instrumental in the arrest of
Remedios Tello and Aquilino Inocencio, and if it had been conclusively proved
that the appellant was motiviated by their guerrilla activities, conviction
would prosper. Upon a review of the evidence, however, we are inclined to
believe that the appellant made the complaint that led to the arrest of Remedios
and Aquilino solely for the purpose of apprehending the assailants of his
brother, Isidro Bautista, who was shot on December 25, 1942 in the vicinity of
Remedios’ house. The following facts are too obvious to be ignored: (1) When
Benjamin Duarte, son of Remedios, was arrested in the evening of said day by
Filipino detectives, he was brought to the police station at the City Hall. (2)
The arrest of Remedios Tello and Aquilino Inocencio on December 26, 1942, was
effected also by Filipino law agents, unaccompanied by any Japanese. (3) The
appellant had no participation whatsoever in the alleged torture of Benjamin
Duarte at the City Hall and of Remedios Tello and Aquilino Inocencio at the Far
Eastern University Garrison. (4) There is no conclusive showing that Remedios
and Aquilino were in fact guerrillas.

If the latter had been denounced for their alleged connection with the
resistance movement, the Japanese would undoubtedly have personally conducted
the raid in their house. The fact that Benjamin Duarte was arrested by Filipino
detectives and brought to and investigated in the City Hall, negatives the idea,
or at least engenders a doubt, that the appellant made a complaint directly to
the Japanese authorities about the guerrilla connections of Benjamin, Remedios
or Aquilino. It is not improbable that the Japanese, who maintained their own
eyes and ears in almost all government offices, came to meddle only in the
course of the investigation of Benjamin Duarte by the Manila police and that, as
then usual, they tried to connect every disturbance of peace in Manila and
elsewhere to their favorite theme — underground movement, — with the result that
when Remedios Tello and Aquilino Inocencio were arrested the next day, December
26, 1942, the Manila police agents were under direction from the Japanese to
bring them to the Far Eastern University Garrison for questioning, something
over which the appellant had no control. Upon the other hand, it was very
natural for the appellant to notify the police of the attempt against his
brother’s life and to suspect that Remedios or her son Benjamin knew something
about it, since it is not disputed that the shot that hit appellant’s brother
came from the direction or vicinity of the house of Remedios.

As there is absolutely no direct proof that the appellant had ever known
Remedios or her son Benjamin to be in fact guerrillas or at least sympathetic to
the underground work, the theory of the prosecution becomes the more
untenable.

In other words, we shall be charitable enough towards the prosecution if we
state that the evidence gives rise to two probabilities, one consistent with
appellant’s innocence and another indicative of his guilt. Consequently, that
which is favorable to the accused should be considered.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is hereby reversed and the appellant
acquitted, with costs de oficio. So s ordered.

Feria, Perfecto,
Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ. concur.