G.R. No. L-14712. April 29, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FEDERICO CORTES, ALIAS PEDRING CORTES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
LABRADOR, J.:
Nolasco, presiding, finding accused-appellant Federico Cortes guilty of treason
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of fifteen years of reclusión
temporal, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay a fine
of P2,000, with costs. The case was first appealed to the Court of Appeals, but
the latter forwarded it to this court on the ground that the crime proved is
punishable by life imprisonment. The trial court found him guilty on count Nos.
1 and 7 of the information, which counts are as follows:
“That during the period from June 1942 to the landing of the American
Liberation Forces in Cebu, for the purpose of giving and with intent to give aid
and/or comfort to the enemy, the above-named accused, FEDERICO CORTES
alias PEDRING CORTES, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously act and serve as member of the puppet Cebu Police Force and later on
of the Bureau of ‘Constabulary of the puppet Republic of the Philippines with
the rank of corporal and at the same time as agent and informer of the Japanese
Military Police (Kempei Tai) in the City of Cebu, and as such, made reports to
the Japanese Kempei Tai as to the movements and activities of guerillas and
prominent persons in the Province of Cebu and participated in the apprehension
and arrest of guerrillas.” (Count No. 1)
“That sometime in 1942, for the
purpose of giving and with intent to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy, the
above-named accused, FEDERICO CORTES alias PEDRING CORTES, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously arrest and apprehend Fernando
Macasero on the charge of having contraband goods in his possession, and did
turn him over to Sgt. Mori of the Japanese Military Police (Kempei Tai); that
said Fernando Macasero was sent to Manila by the Japanese where he was
court-martialed and sentenced to serve an imprisonment for one year.” (Count No.
7)
The evidence submitted by the prosecution to prove count No. 7 consists of
the testimonies of witnesses Fernando Macasero, his wife Teodora Alisna, and
Cornelio Barcelo. Macasero testified that in the morning of August 28, 1942,
appellant Federico Cortes went to his house at Carcar, Cebu, and asked him to
change a P20 Cebu emergency money with bills of small denominations and, if
possible, with some treasury notes. Macasero granted this request and gave
Cortes, in exchange, ten P1 emergency notes and two P5 Philippine treasury
notes. On the following Sunday Cortes again came to his house, driving a car,
accompanied by a Japanese interpreter and two Japanese officials. The car driven
by Cortes was followed by a truck loaded with Japanese soldiers. Upon arrival,
the soldiers immediately surrounded a house near that of Maoasero. Cortes told
hia companions that that was not the house of Macasero, then pointed to
Macasero’s own house. So the Japanese officials, the interpreter and Cortes went
up the house and got all the money that Macasero kept in a drawer, amounting to
around P6,000. It was Cortes, who pointed to the drawer where the money was
being kept.
After that Cortes tied the hands of Macasero together, after which all of
them went down. Macasero was ordered to board the truck, which he did. From
there he was brought to the school building. Once there he was accused of
exchanging money with the guerrillas hiding in the mountains. The Japanese
soldiers and Cortes beat him with a wooden stick, as a result of which he
sustained a wound on the right side of the head. After the investigation and
beating he was brought to Cebu City and after a month and seven days there he
was brought to Manila and confined in Muntinglupa prison, and was not released
until April 29, 1943 on the occasion of a holiday in honor of the Japanese
emperor.
His wife Teodora Alisna declared that on August 28, 1942. Cortes went to
their house to have a P20 bill changed to small denominations, and that they
accommodated him; that at that time they had P6,000 in their drawer; that the
following day appellant Cortes came with Japanese soldiers, went up their house
and investigated her husband, imputing or charging him with having obtained the
money amounting to P6,000 from the guerrillas; that after the investigation,
Cortes tied his hands, and then he was brought down, and asked to board a truck,
and later brought to the ^choolbuilding; that she did not actually see what
happened to her husband in the school although she heard groans coming from
inside the building; that, thereafter, he was brought to Cebu City and was not
released until after April 29, 1943.
Cornelio Barcelo corroborated the statements of Macasero and his wife, as to
the coming of the Japanese soldiers to Macasero’s house. He declared that it was
his house that was first surrounded by the Japanese soldiers, but that Cortes
informed them that that was not the house of Fernando Macasero; that upon being
told where the house of Macasero was, the soldiers went to surround it. He did
not see what happened inside the house of Macasero, but after a while he saw the
soldiers and Macasero and his wife come down, and then the two were asked to
board the truck with Japanese soldiers, while the accused Cortes and the
Japanese officials rode in the car. He further declared that he saw the hands of
Macasero being tied together by Cortes himself; that he followed the truck and
the car to the place where Macasero was brought, which was only about half a
kilometer away; that there he saw Fernando Macasero being beaten by Cortes with
a wooden stick; that the place where the beating took place was in the
schoolbuilding of Carcar, Cebu province.
Appellant Cortes does not deny that he was with the Japanese soldiers when
they took Macasero down from his house and brought him to the Carcar
schoolbuilding. He said that he went to investigate Macasero in the latter part
of June, in his house in Carcar, which was near the Japanese garrison; that he
told Macasero that he had been reported, as the head of a band of robbers and
looters, which accusation Macasero denied; that after this he went down and
proceeded to Cebu City; that he did not go up the house as charged but only
stayed in the truck and waited until Macasero was brought down the house by the
Japanese. It is to be noted that ,Cortes has not offered any witness to
corroborate his denial, nor did he deny that it was he who had indicated the
house of Macasero to the Japanese soldiers. His admission that he investigated
Macasero and that Macasero was taken by the Japanese indicates that he must have
been the one who had denounced Macasero to the Japanese. As he admits that he
was entrusted with investigating Macasero, he must have used the Japanese
technique of investigation, that is, by beating the one being investigated. We
find that the testimony of Macasero that he was beaten by Cortes, as
corroborated by the testimony of Barcelo who saw the actual beating, is true.
We, therefore, lind that count No. 7 of the information has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt by two competent witnesses to the same overt act.
As to the first count, two witnesses also testified, namely, Diego Cañiza and
Marceiino Veloso. Cañiza testified that he was chief of the secret service of
the City of Cebu during the Japanese occupation from June 9, 1942; that Cortes
worked with him for four months until October 4, 1042,. when Cañiza resigned as
chief of the secret service division; that during the four months that Cañiza
was chief of the secret service, Cortes was detailed to the Japanese military
police, working directly under one Captain Mori; that he used to see Cortes
going with the Japanese military patrol; that in the beginning he did not know
what the work of Cortes with the Japanese military police, known as the Kempei
Tai, was, but later on, when the Kempei Tai began arresting suspected
guerrillas, he came to know that Cortes acted as spy or undercover agent.
Marcelino Veloso testified that he was a clerk in the provincial jail and
that he knew the accused. Cortes admitted to him that he was a Filipino citizen
when accused signed the document Exhibit “A”. This witness, however, did not
testify to any overt act of treason committed by appellant.
Another witness identified.two documents, Exhibits “B” and “C”, apparently
signed by the appellant, which are reports on the movements of certain persons
under suspicion and surveillance. The accused denied the authenticity of his
signature to these documents. We are of the belief that his signatures thereon
are authentic, because they are similar to the authentic signature appearing in
Exhibit “A”. These documents are indicative of the activities of appellant
Cortes, as spy and undercover of the Japanese Kempei Tai.
Another witness presented to prove the first count is Lini Beng Liong, who
declared that in the month of September or October, 1944, while he was walking
along Jungera street, he met Federico Cortes who asked him to sign a piece of
paper and, at the same time, ordered him to go to the Philippine Constabulary
headquarters that afternoon; that upon reporting to said headquarters as he was
told to do, he was asked to work the following morning at Yate airfield; that he
asked to be excused, but his request was denied; that he and certain companions
of his were* brought in a truck to Yate airfield and there required to make
excavations for the Japanese; that these excavations were found by him later to
have been used by the Japanese for hiding military supplies, ammunitions and
properties.
The evidence submitted to prove the first count, is to the effect that Cortes
was a member of the Japanese Kempei Tai, engaged in spying on suspected persons,
and in helping secure labor for Japanese defense works. Membership in the Kempei
Tai was proved by the testimony of Cafriza. The act of spying is also proved by
the reports signed by Cortes, Exhibits “B” and “C”; that of securing labor to
help in the building of Japanese defenses was proved by Lim Beng Liong. But
while each of the above acts of helping the enemy is competent by itself, the
three are riot sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the evidence or
testimonies of at least two witnesses must be to the same overt act. (People
vs. Adriano, 78 Phil., 561; 44 Off. Gaz., No. 11, p. 4300, People
vs. Abad, 78 Phil., 766; 44 Off. Gaz., No. 12, p. 4901; People vs.
Tan Mateo, 80 Phil., 211; 45 Off. Gaz., No. 8, p. 3323). We are, therefore,
constrained to hold that the evidence submitted to prove count No. 1 is not
sufficient to satisfy the two-witness rule on treason.
For the foregoing considerations, we find tihat the accused-appellant
Federico Cortes is guilty of treason on count No. 7 alone. However, we find that
the penalty imposed by the trial court is commensurate with the nature of the
act of treason committed. Hence, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, and Dizon, JJ., concur.