THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AURELIO SANTIAGO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Aurelio Santiago was prosecuted in the People’s Court for treason on six
counts. The case was tried along with 29 others each of which was against a
single defendant. The information made charges of arrests and atrocities to most
of which the present appellant was not a party. The result of this “mass trial”
was that proofs applicable to individual defendants and not common to all were
intermingled in the voluminous records, giving rise to the necessity of poring
over the great mass of testimony given by numerous witnesses to pick out the
evidence bearing on each particular accused. The other result was that many
specifications were not dwelt upon thoroughly or not at all.

The trial court found the herein appellant guilty on three of the six counts
laid against him, there being no evidence touching on the other three) as far as
the appellant is concerned. The counts on which the appellant was convicted are
the first, the second and the fifth.

The testimony which the trial court believed supported count No. 1 was that
of Maria Estanislao, Eduvijis Samson, Pablo Rojas and Aquilino Guevara.

Maria Estanislao, 33 years old, testified substantially as follows: The
Makapilis came to her parent’s home on December 26, 1944, looking for her
father. Borong-Borong and Eleno del Rosario were the only Makapilis she knew
very well. The Makapilis wanted her father because he was a supply officer
furnishing vegetables and rice to the guerrillas. Her father was on his way to
the field when Borong-Borong called him back. The Makapilis were armed, Eleno
and Borong-Borong with a revolver and a hand grenade each. Her father was given
a water cure and taken away, but she did not see what was done to the other
prisoners. Later her father was brought back to their house and the house was
searched for weapons. Her father was tied and had scratches on the face when he
returned accompanied by Borong-Borong and others. She did not see her father
alive again after that date.

Pablo Rojas, 31 years old, testified that on December 26, 1944, he was
apprehended in Marikina; it was about 6:30 a.m. and he had just gotten up from
bed. He was taken to barrio Calumpang and was made to fall in line with about
300 other men. Only one Makapili took him from his house but there were many
others on the road. After the prisoners were lined up, including himself, eight
of them were segregated from the rest and manhandled. He did not witness the
maltreatment because Japanese soldiers, one of whom was one Kubata, came and
allowed him to go to the municipal building because he was on guard on that day,
being a policeman. Those who lined up the prisoners were the fat man (pointing
to Agaton Martin), Eleno del Rosario, Domingo Ramirez and Aurelio Santiago. He
could not remember the rest any more.

Aquilino Guevara testified that on the 26th of December, 1944, he was living
in Calumpang, Marikina. His son, Bienvenido, was taken by “those people”
(pointing to all the accused) during the “zonification” in Calumpang. They were
made to line up and then, while a man read a list, another, an old man, pulled
out of the line those whose names were called. Told to point out among the
accused the persons who were present at the “zonification”, the witness
indicated several defendants one of whom was Aurelio Santiago. His (witness’)
son Bienvenido was one of the “zonified” persons whose names were in the list,
and Bienvenido was conducted to a place near a house. He could not tell what was
done to Bienvenido nor did he see his son again. Eleno del Rosario said that
Bienvenido was a guerrilla.

Following are extracts from Eduvijis Samson’s testimony: In December, 1944,
she lived in Calumpang, Marikina. On the 26th of that month, she saw something
extra-ordinary: male residents of Calumpang were ordered to stand in line; then
they were made to sit down, and, as names were being called from a list, those
who were in the roll stood up, were segregated, bound and maltreated. This
happened in front of her house. Those who ordered the people to line up were
Makapilis. The only ones she knew among them were Gavino, Borong-Borong and
Eleno. She knew some of the Makapilis by sight and pointed to Gavino Basilio,
Agaton Martin, Eleno del Rosario, Felipe Reyes, Faustino Santos, Cirilo Tuason,
Amado Menor and Guillermo Figueroa. Nine men were taken out of the line. On
cross-examination, when defense counsel requested the witness to point out
again, the Makapilis whom she recognized, she indicated Aurelio Santiago, among
others.

Count No. 2. Marcela Raymundo testified that Jose Cruz was her
husband. She saw him when he was brought to their home under arrest with his
hands tied. The reason for the arrest was that he was a guerrilla. She knew some
of the men who arrested her husband, and they were Cirilo Tuason, Bias Cruz,
Aurelio Santiago, Faustino Santos, Rufo Mejia, Benito Tuason, Juan Alejandro,
Daniel Alejandro and Alfredo Espiritu. She did not know the rest but there were
many. She did not see her husband again after he was loaded on a banca, and she
did not know where he was taken. Some of the persons who arrested her husband
carried rifles and others pistols. They were all Filipinos attired in blue
denim. All of this occurred on November 29, 1944, in the afternoon, in Ugong,
Pasig, Rizal. It was still light.

Justa Santos, 58 years of age, swore that she saw Jose Cruz for the last time
on November 29, 1944, in barrio Ugong, Pasig. He was under arrest and passed in
front of her house guarded by his captors, who were Cirilo Tuason, Rufo Mejia,
Bias Cruz and Aurelio Santiago. She could not tell if these were armed, and she
did not know where Jose Cruz was taken. She knew Jose Cruz was under arrest
because his hands were tied. Her house in Ugong, Pasig, was on the same road or
street where the Cruz’s was situated with nine other houses between them.

Count No. 5. Ceferina Raymundo, 32 years, resident of Ugong, Pasig,
testified that Pedro Natividad was her husband. On the 10th of December, 1944,
Pedro Natividad was arrested at her house by the Makapilis. She did not know the
cause of the arrest and did not see him any more after he was hauled away. She
inquired of the Makapilis about her husband’s whereabouts but all of them told
her it was useless to look for him because he was a guerrilla. Of those who
arrested Pedro Natividad, she knew Agaton Martin, Faustino Santos, Bias Cruz,
Aurelio Santiago, Alfredo Espiritu and Benito Tuason. She did not know the names
of the others but she could point them out. Some of them were armed with
rifles.

Deogracias Natividad, 13 years old, testified that Pedro Natividad was his
father and Ceferina Raymundo, his mother. On December 10, 1944, at about 8
o’clock p.m., his father was apprehended by the Makapilis. He was at home with
his parents. He knew the names of some of the Makapilis who arrested his father.
There were about fifteen of them. Those whom he knew were Aurelio, whose surname
he did not know, and also Bias, Benito and Tibo. They were all armed with rifles
and there were no Japanese with them. After his father was taken away, the
Makapilis came back and searched their house for firearms. When they did not
find any weapons, they picked up and carried away jewelry and money. Since
December 13, when his father was arrested, he had not seen him.

Aurelio Santiago took the witness stand on his behalf. He gave his age as 37
years. When his attention was called to the testimony of Deogracias Natividad,
he replied, “I can not tell anything about that.” He said he was a farmer and
used to go to the farm early in the morning to take care of his carabao, and
that there were nights in December when he did not come home. He denied having
possessed a firearm. Referring to the testimony of Marcela Raymundo, to the
effect that he and others arrested Jose Cruz, the appellant again said, “I do
not know anything about that.” He gave the same answer with regard to the
testimony of Justa Santos and to the question about his alleged part in the
“zonification” of the inhabitants of barrio Calumpang. He stated in this
connection that on November 26, 1944, he was tending his carabao which, he said,
he had to do on weekdays and Sundays, He added he never went to Calumpang during
the Japanese occupation.

The evidence does not sustain the first count. Disregarding the two-witness
requirement, we find the testimony offered in support of this count at variance
with the charge. For once, the heart of count No. 1 is that the accused was a
Ganap, an agent and informer for the Japanese. There is not sufficient evidence
on this score. The reference to the appellant as a Makapili is laconic, and the
basis of that reference is unexplained. The burden of the evidence on count No.
1 is that Aurelio Santiago helped round up citizens for screening guerrillas or
guerrilla suspects who were later executed, matters which are not alleged in the
count under consideration.

Conviction in prosecution for treason must be founded on direct and positive
evidence, not on Inferences from generalities that are susceptible of various
meanings.

However, the first count is for the most part a mere variant statement of
counts 2 and 5. Each of these two counts has been fully established by the oaths
of two witnesses. We find nothing in the record which would justify us in
disturbing the findings of the trial court on said counts. The witnesses knew
the accused intimately since, according to the defendant’s testimony, he lived
in barrio Ugong where Jose Cruz and Pedro Natividad were apprehended.

True, it is to be noted, in relation to count No. 2, that Justa Santos and
Ceferina Raymundo saw Jose Cruz in the hands of the accused and some of his
codefendants at different places and consequently at different moments. But
considering the short distance between the two places, the fact that Jose Cruz
was arrested only once, at least on December 10, 1944, and the fact that the
accused and his companions were, when they were seen by Justa Santos, leading
the prisoner in the direction of the house where his wife saw him and from which
he was whisked away on a banca, there can be no question that both witnesses
referred to the same act averred in count No. 2.

As to count No. 5, both Marcela Raymundo and her son saw the defendant at the
same time and at the same place pick up Pedro Natividad. We have no reason to
doubt their veracity.

The arrests of Jose Cruz and Pedro Natividad by the accused and others were
undeniably accomplished with treasonable intent, and there is no gainsaying that
their performance materially aided the Japanese and gave them comfort. The
proofs on counts 2 and 5 constitute both adherence to the enemy and overt acts
irrespective of whether the appellant was a Ganap, Makapili or plain
civilian.

The appellant has been sentenced to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of
reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P7,000.00 and the costs, the
court having appreciated in his favor the lack of education. This sentence is in
accordance with law and the evidence, and the same is affirmed with costs of
this appeal.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, and Reyes,
JJ., concur.

MORAN, C. J.:

Mr. Justice Montemayor and Mr. Justice Torres voted for affirmance.