THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TROADIO BUTAWAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court
convicting the appellant Troadio Butawan of the crime of treason with murder and
illegal detention, and sentencing him to death by electrocution, to pay a fine
of P2,000, plus the costs.

The information charged eight counts, but the prosecution was
able to present evidence in support of only counts 1, 5 and 6. The People’s
Court found the appellant guilty of these three counts.

Under count 1, the appellant is charged with having adhered to
the enemy and given her aid and comfort by serving as a detachment commander of
the Bureau of Constabulary under the Japanese Military Forces. Under count No.
5, the appellant is charged with having shot and killed at about 7 o’clock in
the morning of January 18, 1944, Zoilo Calimutan, a member of the guerrilla
organization known as the “Bolo Battalion,” while the latter was distilling
tuba near his house in Rosario, Cortes, Bohol, with his back towards the
appellant. Under count No. 6, the appellant is accused of having apprehended,
maltreated and tortured, on February 22, 1944, Gabriel Lumba, Maximo Buyo and
Apolinario Igpit, also members of the “Bolo Battalion.”

There is no dispute that the appellant served as a detachment
commander of the Bureau of Constabulary during the Japanese occupation, and that
his duty was to protect the lives and properties of, and pacify, the civilians.
Even so, mere membership in said Bureau of Constabulary, without more, did not
constitute treason, for as held in People vs. Albano, (82 Phil., 767),
“possibly, under certain circumstances, members of the police force during the
occupation who merely urged guerrillas to keep the peace and to stop their
activities did not commit treason; but when it is shown by positive evidence
that said officers were not content to render lip service to the enemy in making
pleas for public order, but went further and tortured their countrymen who were
guerrillas or guerrilla sympathizers, a verdict of guilt must inevitably be
returned.”

The appellant, however, did not merely perform pacification
work, but, as charged in count No. 5, he shot and killed his countryman Zoilo
Calimutan, a guerrilla member; and, as charged in count No. 6, he apprehended
and maltreated Gabriel Lumba, Maximo Buyo and Apolinario Igpit, likewise members
of the guerrilla organization known as the “Bolo Battalion.” These overt acts
were proved by the testimony of two or more witnesses who have not been
demonstrated to have had any motive for incriminating the appellant. Adherence
to the enemy is to be inferred from the fact that when said overt acts were
committed, he was in company of Japanese soldiers and constabulary patrols, and
from the fact that the victims were guerrillas. That Zoilo Calimutan was shot is
even admitted by the appellant who, however, alleges that he was shot by a
Japanese. His testimony is not worthy of credence. It is noteworthy that the
appellant admits that, when the mother of Zoilo Calimutan was begging for
medicine from the appellant with which to cure her wounded son, the appellant
answered that he would give her bullets.

The appellant does not deny that he was with a combined
Japanese and Constabulary patrol on February 22, 1944, when several people,
among whom were Gabriel Lumba, Maximo Buyo and Apolinario Igpit, were
apprehended and maltreated, although the appellant claims that it was the
Japanese who were responsible therefor. Appellant’s pretense cannot negative the
effect of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that the
Filipino citizenship of the appellant was irregularly proven, in that the
prosecution rested its case without establishing said citizenship, although the
prosecutor thereafter successfully maneuvered to extract from appellant’s lawyer
an admission of appellant’s Filipino citizenship, which admission was confirmed
in open court by the appellant. As the appellant and his attorney virtually
stipulated as to the question of citizenship, they cannot now be permitted to
withdraw therefrom. In view of said stipulation, it became unnecessary for the
prosecution to submit proof on the point.

Upon the whole, we conclude that the appellant is guilty of
treason, not complexed by murder and illegal detention, since these offenses are
elements and the very overt acts of treason. There being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, the penalty provided by article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code should be imposed in the medium degree.

It being understood, therefore, that the appellant is sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, the appealed judgment, as thus modified, is hereby
affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones,
Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.