THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANT AND APPELALNT.

Appellant Pedro T. Villanueva was sentenced to death by the Fifth Division of
the defunct People’s Court for the crime of treason. On March 10, 1948, the case
was elevated to us (G. R. No. L-2073) not only by virtue of the appeal duly
interposed by the accused but also under the provisions of Section 9 of Rule 118
of the Rules of Court which provides mandatory review by this Tribunal of all
decisions or judgments of the lower courts imposing death penalties. Meantime,
it was discovered that the transcript of stenographic notes taken down on
October 8, 1947, before the People’s Court was missing and unavailable, by
reason of which and upon recommendation of the Solicitor General, we promulgated
a resolution on August 1, 1952, remanding the case to the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo for the retaking of the missing testimonies of the four
witnesses who testified before the People’s Court, namely, Gregorio Gaton,
Ambrosio Tuble, Basilia Taborete, and the accused himself. Thus the case was
sent to that court.

On August 24, 1953, appellant filed a petition with the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo praying that he be allowed to withdraw his appeal so as to
avail himself of the benefits of the Executive clemency granted to all prisoners
convicted of treason, including those whose cases were pending appeal, on
condition that such appeals be first withdrawn. Whereupon the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo returned the case to us for whatever action we may take in
view of the withdrawal requested, for, at all events, the case had to be
reviewed by us regardless of defendant’s appeaL The case was included in the
agenda prepared by the Clerk of Court for September 21, 1953, only on the basis
of the motion for withdrawal of appeal by appellant, without calling the
attention of the Tribunal that defendant had previously appealed from a decision
sentencing him to death, which decision called for an automatic review and
judgment by us. Accordingly, and following the practice of this Tribunal of
acting favorably on petitions for withdrawal of appeals where briefs had not
been filed, as in the present case, said petition for withdrawal was granted by
resolution of September 21, 1953. However, at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of the same date, and after the passing of the resolution, appellant
filed directly with this Court a petition reiterating his request for withdrawal
of appeal previously made with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, attaching
thereto two documents said to be copies of the conditional pardon granted him
and of the letter of the Legal Assistant in the office of the President
addressed to the Director of Prisons. It was only on considering this second
petition when we realized the nature of the case and that the withdrawal of
appeal granted on September 21, 1953, was a mistake and contrary to legal
precedents. So, in a resolution dated October 19, 1953, this Tribunal
reconsidered its resolution of September 21st granting withdrawal of appeal, and
again remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the
retaking of the testimonies above referred to, with instructions that a new
decision be rendered based on the said testimonies and on the standing evidence
adduced before the People’s Court. The resolution of October 19th read as
follows:

“By a decision dated November 19, 1947, the Fifth Division of the defunct
People’s Court after trial of appellant Pedro T. Villanueva on a charge of
treason on several counts, found him guilty of treason and murder and sentenced
him thus—

‘IN THE VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, finding the accused
Pedro T. Villanueva guilty of the complex crime of treason and murders as
defined in Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with Article 48
of the same Code, sentences him to suffer death penalty, with the accessories of
the law, to indemnify the heirs of Cosme Calacasan in the amount of P2,000, to
indemnify the heirs of Julia Cabilitasan in the amount of P2,000, to indemnify
the heirs of Sofia Tambirao in the amount of P2,000, and to pay a fine of Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000) and the costs of the proceedings.’

“Villanueva duly appealed to this Court. The records were sent up to us not
only by virtue of the appeal but also under the provisions of Rule 118, Section
9, of the Rules of Court which provides for review and judgment by this Tribunal
of all cases in which the death penalty shall have been imposed by a court of
first instance, whether the defendant shall have appealed or not.

“It appearing that the stenographic notes taken of the testimony of the
witnesses who testified on October 8, 1947, could not be located, and following
the recommendation of the Solicitor General, a resolution was promulgated on
August 1, 1952, remanding the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for
the retaking of the testimony of said witnesses.

“Thereafter before said court defendant-appellant Villanueva filed a petition
dated August 24, 1953, stating that about July 4, 1953, the Chief Executive
granted executive clemency to all prisoners convicted of treason, including
those whose cases were pending appeal, on condition that such appeals be first
withdrawn, supposedly to give finality to the judgment of the lower court, and
asking that he be allowed to withdraw his appeal. Acting upon said petition the
Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued an order dated September 10, 1953,
directing the return of the case to this Court for whatever action it may take
in the premises, in view of the petition for withdrawal of the appeal filed by
appellant and because the case had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court anyway
regardless of the appeal by the defendant.

“The case was considered by us on September 21, 1953. The agenda of this
Court on that date as regards this was prepared by the Clerk of Court’s Office
only on the basis of the motion for withdrawal of appeal by the defendant. Our
attention was not called to the fact that defendant had previously appealed from
a decision sentencing him to death, which decision called for an automatic
review and judgment by us. So, following the practice of this Tribunal of acting
favorably on petitions for withdrawal of appeals where the briefs have not yet
been filed, as in the present case, said petition for withdrawal of appeal was
granted by resolution of September 21, 1953. On the same date, however, and
presumably after the passing of the resolution, appellant Villanueva filed
directly with this Court a petition reiterating the request for withdrawal of
his appeal previously made with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, attaching
to his petition Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’, said to be copies of the conditional
pardon and of the letter of the Legal Assistant in the Office of the President
addressed to the Director of Prisons. It was only on considering said petition
that we realized the nature of the case and the decision appealed to this Court,
the withdrawal of which appeal had been granted by the resolution of September
21, 1953.

“An accused appealing from a decision sentencing him to death may be allowed
to withdraw his appeal like any other appellant in an ordinary criminal case
before the briefs are filed, but his withdrawal of the appeal does not remove
the case from the jurisdiction of this Court which under the law is authorized
and called upon to review the decision though unappealed. Consequently, the
withdrawal of the appeal in this case could not serve to render the decision of
the People’s Court final. In fact, as was said by this Court thru Justice
Moreland in the case of U.S. vs. Laguna, 17 Phil. 532, speaking on the matter of
review by this Court of a decision imposing the death penalty, the judgment of
conviction entered in the trial court is not final, and cannot be executed and
is wholly without force or effect until the case has been passed upon by the
Supreme Court en consulta; that although a judgment of conviction is entered by
the trial court, said decision has none of the attributes of a final judgment
and sentence; that until it has been reviewed by the Supreme Court which
finally passes upon it, the same is not final and conclusive; and that this
automatic review by the Supreme Court of decisions imposing the death penalty is
something which neither the court nor the accused could waive or evade.

“Furthermore, when the case was remanded to the lower court for the purpose
of retaking the testimony of those witnesses who testified on October 8, 1947,
the case was virtually remanded for new trial. Of course, the evidence and the
testimony received during the trial before the People’s Court which is still
intact and available shall stand and the new trial will be confined to the
testimony of the same witnesses who testified on October 8, 1947, the
stenographic notes or transcript of which cannot now be found. Under these
circumstances, it is necessary for the trial court to render a new decision
because the new trial is being held before a new Judge and there is no assurance
that the witnesses testifying, altho the very same ones who were on the witness
stand on October 8, 1947, would testify to the same facts and in the same manner
that they did at the former trial, altho they are supposed to do so. (See
Demetria Obien de Almario vs. Fidel Ibañez, et al., 46 O. G. No. 1, p. 390).
Going over the record of the case, we find that it would not be too difficult
for the trial judge to see to it that the said witnesses as far as possible
confine themselves to the same points on which they testified on October 8,
1947, because the testimonies of said witnesses including the defendant are
referred to and described in the decision of the People’s Court on pages 87,
123, and 124 to 129, and that there are only four witnesses including the
accused himself.

“Examining Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ submitted by appellant in relation to his
petition for the withdrawal of his appeal, we find that although his name
appears in the list of prisoners convicted by the People’s Court and supposed to
be pardoned conditionally, the pardon itself refers to the remission of the
‘unexpired portions of the prison sentence terms and the fines of the prisoners
listed below who were convicted by the defunct People’s Court of treason and
committed! to the new Bilibid Prison to serve their sentence.’ It is highly
doubtful that the pardon could have contemplated and included appellant herein
because his sentence of death does not merely involve a prison term which
expires in time. Besides, a death sentence is not exactly served but rather
executed. Moreover, Exhibit ‘B’ says that ‘those prisoners whose cases are still
pending on appeal shall be released only after their appeal has been withdrawn.’
The implication is that the withdrawal of the appeal rendered the decision of
the People’s Court final, resulting in conviction, this to bring it into harmony
with Art. VII, Sec. 10(6) of the Constitution which requires conviction as a
condition precedent to the exercise of Executive clemency. As we have already
stated, despite defendant’s withdrawal of his appeal from the decision imposing
the death sentence, there is no definite conviction or sentence until and after
this Tribunal has reviewed the case and rendered its own decision affirming,
modifying or reversing that of the lower court, unless of course in the new
decision of the trial court based on the new trial a sentence other than death
is imposed, in which case there would be no automatic review by us.

“Let the record of this case be again remanded to the Court of First Instance
of Iloilo for new trial and thereafter, for a new decision.”

At the new trial, only the testimonies of witnesses for the defense, Ambrosio
Tuble and Basilio Taborete, were introduced. Appellant also presented
documentary evidence relative to the conditional pardon allegedly granted him.
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found nothing in the newly adduced
evidence to disturb the decision of the People’s Court, and, reproducing said
decision, rendered judgment on October 11, 1955, sentencing appellant to capital
punishment. The case was again elevated to us for automatic review and judgment
and given the present docket number.

In the amended information filed before the People’s Court, appellant was
accused of treason on ten counts, but the prosecution adduced evidence only on
seven of them, namely, Counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The lower court found
that Counts 1 and 2 were not proven, and convicted the accused on Counts 6, 7,
8, 9 and 10.

The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation, appellant,
who is a Filipino citizen, and owing allegiance to the United States of America
and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, gave the enemy aid and comfort by
rendering service with the Japanese Imperial Army as secret agent, informer and
spy, of its Detective Force in the province of Iloilo, and that in the
performance of such service, he participated actively and directly in the
punitive expeditions periodically made by the Japanese forces in the
guerilla-infested areas of the province of Iloilo, and committed robberies,
arson and mass-murders, specifically as follows:

Count No. 6. Anent this Count, the amended information recites:

“6. That on or about June 10, 1943, at the barrios of Baroc and Atabayan,
municipality of Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere
as he did adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give as he did
give said enemy aid and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of
the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army, and in company with other Filipino
spies and several Japanese soldiers, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and treasonably arrest Vicente Garrido, Juan Tatlonghari, Clodovio
Trieco, Melchor Trieco, Cosme Tobias, Leoncio Tumamudtamud, Quirino Toranto,
Napoleon Luceno, Modesto Torremoro and Dionisio Belandrez on the charge that
they were guerrilla soldiers and/or sympathizers and did investigate, maltreat
and torture them; that subsequently the persons above-mentioned were taken away
and were not seen or heard of since then; that on the occasion of the
aforementioned patrol, the above-named accused and his companions, .with intent
of gain and without consent of the owners thereof, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously loot the house of Jose T. Belandrez,
taking therefrom genuine Philippine currency in the amount of P300; emergency
notes in the amount of P1,200; jewelry valued at P500; clothing valued at P200;
and other personal effects; and from the house of Toribia Taleon, jewelry,
watches, clothing and other personal effects with a total value of P160 more or
less.”

Jose T. Belandrez, Salvador Toranto, Toribia Taleon and Maria Mendoza,
corroborating one another, testified that at dawn of June 10, 1943, appellant,
accompanied by some Filipinos and Japanese soldiers, went to the house of Jose
T. Belandrez situated at Tigbauan, Iloilo, and took therefrom P1,200 in cash,
jewelry worth P300, and clothing valued at P200; that they also arrested
Dionisio Belandrez, Modesto Torremoro and Napoleon Luceno, members of the Bolo
Battalion, an auxiliary unit of the guerrillas; that since that fateful day, the
said three members of the Bolo Battalion never returned.

Count No. 7. The amended information respecting this Count, reads as
follows:

“7. That on or about the 9th and 10th day of August, 1943, in the
municipality of Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere
as he did adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give, as he did
give said enemy, aid and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of
the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army, and in company with other Filipino
spies and Japanese soldiers, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and treasonably arrest and apprehend several persons suspected of
guerrilla activities, among whom were Federico Tinamisan, Eustaquio Doga, Roque
Tiologo, Salvador Tedor, Tomas Trompeta, Agapito Trompeta, Andres Tayo, Victorio
Tuante, Manuel Teano, Matias Tirante, Rufo Tolate, Celedonio Tupino, Alfredo
Trompeta, Hilarion Toga and several others, who were gathered in the Chapel at
barrio Napnapan, where the persons aforesaid were investigated, maltreated and
tortured, as a consequence of which Salvador Tedor died of the beating and
torture inflicted upon him by the herein accused and his companions; that the
following morning about thirty-seven persons were taken to the yard of Valentina
Amandoron’s house, where Jesus Astrologo, Carlos Palma, Filipino co-spies of the
accused, and the Japanese killed by beheading Andres Tai, Victorio Tuante, Roque
Tiologo, Manuel Teano, Matias Tirania, Rufo Tulato, Agapito Trompeta, Tomas
Trompeta, Celedonio Tupino, Simeon Ledesma, Hermenegildo Taleon, Marcelo Turid,
Magdaleno Turid, Enrique Turid, Jose Tamon, Cornelio Taghap, Eustaquio Doga,
Eugenio (LNU), Francisco (LNU) Lucio (LNU), Juan (LNU), Casimiro (LNU), Gorteo
(LNU), and several others whose names are unknown, while Alfredo Trompeta and
Hilarion Toga were struck and wounded on their necks but miraculously escaped
death.”

Six witnesses testified on this Count, namely, Severa Gua, Natividad Duga,
Alfredo Trompeta, Hilario Taghap and Valentina Amandoron who, corroborating one
another, stated that on August 9 or 10, 1943, which was a Monday, at about six
o’clock in the evening, while Eustaquio Duga and his family were at their home
in Tigbauan, Iloilo, he saw Japanese soldiers and some Filipinos approaching
their house; that Eustaquio Duga notified his wife and they immediately started
to flee; that unfortunately, they were overtaken by the Japanese soldiers, and
Eustaquio Duga was arrested by herein appellant who was in company with said
Japanese soldiers; that Eustaquio Duga was taken to the nearby barrio of
Napnapan; that sometime later, Severa Gua found the dead body of Eustaquio Duga,
with his head almost severed, among other corpses in the yard of the house of
Valentina Amandoron.

On the same day, while Alfredo Trompeta and his companion Roque Teologo were
walking in a barrio road in Napnapan, Tigbauan, Iloilo, they were arrested by
Japanese soldiers who were with the appellant; that Trompeta and Teologo were
taken to the barrio of Ermita, of the same municipality, where they were
investigated together with about thirty persons who were suspected as
guerrillas; thence they were brought to the house of Valentina Amandoron where
appellant and his companions killed in cold blood Trompeta’s companions as well
as those persons who were brought there earlier. Among the twenty-five persons
killed on that occasion, were Andres Tayo, Tomas Trompeta, Rufo Tolato, Roque
Teologo, Jose Taucon and Matias Tiranea.

Count No. 8. The information equally recites:

“8. That on or about August 12, 1943, in the municipality of Leon, Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused,
Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did adhere to the enemy, and
with treasonable intent to give as he did give said enemy aid and comfort,
in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force, Imperial
Japanese Army; and in company with other Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably arrest
Cosme Calacasan, Nazario Calimutan, Alberto Caborique, Nazario Calacasan, Marcos
Sobrevega, Jose Canillas, Aurelio Calacasan, Graciano (LNU), Juan (LNU), and
three others, names unknown, on the charge that the persons aforesaid were
guerrilla soldiers or guerrilla sympathizers; that thereafter these persons
were taken to barrio Taal municipality of San Miguel, where the accused and his
companions set fire to and burned several houses in the aforesaid barrio; and
later to barrio Baguingin, municipality of Leon, where the above-named accused
and his conmpanions investigated, maltreated and tortured them; that the
above-named accused further adhering to the enemy did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably, and with evident premeditation and
treachery, bayonetted to death Cosme Calacasan, while tied to a tree with hands
tied behind his back; while Nazario Calimutan was bayonetted and killed in the
same manner by Jesus Astrologo, Filipino co-spy of the herein accused; while
Graciano (LNU) and Juan (LNU) and two others (names unknown) were bayoneted to
death by the Filipino and Japanese companions of the accused; that after the
killing of the aforesaid persons, the above-named accused and his companions did
gather the corpses of their victims in the house of Juan Caya and thereafter did set fire to and burn that house with the dead bodies inside.”

Aurelio Calacasan and Jose Canillas, corroborating each other, testified that
at about eight o’clock in the morning of August 12, 1943, while Aurelio
Calacasan, Cosme Calacasan, Anazario Calimutan, Alberto Caborique, Nazario
Calacasan, Marcos Sobrevieja and Jose Canillas and several others were in the
barrio of Anonang, Leon, Iloilo, they were arrested by Japanese soldiers and
taken to the barrio of Taal, of the same municipality, where they saw appellant
and his companions. After setting afire the houses in said barrio, appellant and
his companions brought the prisoners to barrio Agboy, of the same municipality,
where they were investigated regarding their guerilla activities or connections;
that during the investigations, appellant stabbed to death Cosme Calacasan who
was a member of the Bolo Battalion, an auxiliary unit of the guerrillas; that
after several prisoners were killed, their corpses were gathered and placed in a
house which was set on fire.

Count No. 9. Concerning this Count, the amended information recites:

“9. That on or about August 12, 1943, in the municipality of Leon, Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused,
Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did adhere to the enemy and
with treasonable intent to give as he did give said enemy aid and comfort, in
his capacity as agent, informer, spy of the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese
Army, and in company with other Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably conduct and carry
out a raid against and mass arrest of persons suspected as guerrilla soldiers
and sympathizers, as a consequence of which, about eighty persons, male and
female, both young and old were arrested and gathered in a schoolhouse and
chapel in the barrio of Buenavista, and thereat investigated, maltreated and
tortured by the herein accused and his companions; that subsequently about
thirty persons including women and children were taken to the house of Aquilino
Sales, where about fourteen persons were bayonetted and killed by Japanese
soldiers, namely, Julia Cabilitasan, Mercedes Calopez, Andrea Cahipo, Eustaquia
Cabilinga, Isabel Canag, Rosalia Calopez, Luz Caldito, Estelita Camorahan, Roman
Cabilinga, Tomas Canag, Luis Cabalfin, Juan Cabalfin, Macario Cabilitasan and
Aurelio Caldito; while Paulina Cantara, Alejandro Calsona and Bienvenido
Cabankalan received and sustained bayonet wounds but survived and were able to
escape after the house of aforesaid Aquilino Sales was set on fire and burned by
said patrol of Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers.”

Aquilina Cabilitasan, Bienvenido Cabankalan, Alejandro Calsena and Perpetua
Canag, who testified for the prosecution, corroborating one another, stated that
at about eight o’clock in the morning of August 12, 1943, several residents of
barrio Buenavista, Leon, Iloilo, were arrested by the appellant, who was armed
with revolver and bayonet, and his companions consisting of Filipinos and
Japanese soldiers; that said barrio residents were brought to the barrio
schoolhouse where they were investigated. During the investigation, Julia
Cabilitasan was singled out by the appellant who tied her hands behind her back
and brought her under a “doldol” (kapok) tree, near a chapel, where she was
stripped of all her clothings until she was naked. Appellant investigated her
regarding the whereabouts of her husband who was a USAFFE soldier. Appellant,
after severely beating Julia Cabilitasan, brought her to the house of Aquilino
Sales where there were other Filipino prisoners. Shortly thereafter, appellant
and his companions started the massacre of the prisoners. Appellant stabbed
Julia Cabilitasan three times with a bayonet. In that massacre, fourteen persons
including women and children were killed. Among those killed were Julia
Cabilitasan, Macario Cabilitasan, Roman Cabelenga, Andrea Cahipos and Julia
Calpit. Later, said house was set on fire.

Count No. 10. Lastly, the amended information regarding this Count, recites:

“10. That on or about March 18, 1944, in the municipalities of Guimbal and
Tubuñgan, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did adhere
to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give as he did give said enemy aid
and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force,
Imperial Japanese Army, and in company with other Filipino spies, Bureau of
Constabulary and Japanese soldiers, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and treasonably arrest Rosalio Tambirao, Joaquin Escorido, Carolina
Escorido, Romero Escorido, Edgardo Escorido, Editha Escorido, Sofia Tambiras,
Raul Tabanda, Nestor Tabanda, Elena Gierza, Natividad Gersalino, Jovita
Gersalino, Ernesto Tambirao, Ruly Tambirao, Jesusa Jimenez, Eustaquio
Tortugalete, Paz Tabora, Basilisa Taborete, Gloria Escorido, Ciriaco Gierza and
several others with unknown names on the charge that the persohs aforesaid were
either guerrilla soldiers, sympathizers and supporters; that the aforesaid
persons were then taken to the house of Jacinto Toborete, where the herein
accused, did then and their investigate, maltreat, or otherwise torture Basilisa
Taborete, Gloria Escorido and Eustaquia Tortugalete in an effort to make them
confess as to their connection with the guerrilla movement and the whereabouts
of the guerrilla soldiers; that subsequently the herein accused further adhering
to the enemy did deliver to a Japanese executioner Juan Gelario, Felipe Tanato,
David Garnica, Juana Tabacoran, Jesusa Jimenez and Luz Tabiana, who were all
executed and killed one after another; that the killing of Juana Tabacoran,
Jesusa Jimenez and Luz Tabiana took place shortly after they were abused and
raped by the Japanese and BC soldiers in the house of Jacinto Taborete; that
while this was going on, Jovita Gersalino and Lourdes Tabanda were taken to
another house by the herein accused, Filemon Palacios, Jr., Vicente Tolosa and a
Japanese soldier, where they were abused and raped; that subsequently the
persons gathered were asked who of them were relatives of Tranquilino Geonanga
for they would be released and when an old woman answered that they were all
relatives of Tranquilino Geonanga, the Japanese soldiers at once started to
inflict and deliver bayonet thrusts on the persons gathered and as a consequence
of which about thirty of them were killed and several were wounded: that
subsequently, the herein accused and his companions proceeded to barrio
Buluangan, where one Saturnino (LNU) was arrested, investigated, maltreated and
tortured by the herein accused and later killed by the Japanese.”

Gloria Escprido, Basilisa Gierza and Ciriaco Gierza, testifying in support of
this Count, and corroborating one another, stated that at about seven o’clock in
the morning of March 16, 1944, while the appellant and several Japanese soldiers
were on a punitive expedition in the barrio of Miadan, Guim^al, Iloilo, they
arrested the barrio residents who fled to the Dalihi creek in Tubongan, Iloilo;
that the barrio residents, who were about fifty persons, were brought to the
barrio of Laguna, Tubongan, Iloilo, where they were investigated and maltreated;
that during the investigation, appellant tied the feet of Gloria Escorido,
hanged her with her head downward and beat her with the branch of an “aguho”
tree; that appellant likewise brought to the house of Jacinto Batorete three
females, namely, Luz Tabiana, Jesusa Jimenez and Juana Tabiana where the said
girls were abused by the appellant and his companions; that appellant
also bayoneted to death Sofia Tambirao for the simple reason that she was the
cousin of Tranquilino Geonanga, an officer of the guerrillas; that appellant and
his companions massacred on that occasion around thirty persons, among whom were
Jovita Gersalino, Carolina Escorido, Romero Escorido, Sofia Tambierao, and
Edgardo Escorido.

We have, therefore, that appellant not only participated actively in the
punitive raids made by the Japanese soldiers and in arresting and killing
Filipino Guerrillas, but personally manhandled Gloria Escorido, a girl barely 16
years of age at the time (Count 10), and killed in cold blood Cosme Calacasan by
bayoneting him three times (Count 8), Julia Cabilitasan by likewise bayoneting
her three times, with the added ignominy of stripping her stark naked moments
before killing her (Count 9), and Sofia Tambirao (Count 10.) These specific
overt acts of appellant as testified to by eyewitnesses who have survived the
harrowing massacres, speak eloquently that his adherence to the enemy in giving
it aid and comfort, was accompanied by cruelty and ruthlessness, in wanton
disregard of the feelings and decency of his fellow citizens.

The foregoing facts were not impugned by any evidence for appellant, his
defense in the lower court merely consisting of (1) his denial of the overt acts
imputed upon him, and (2) that if he ever served in the detective force of the
Japanese Army since January 1st, 1944, it was because he was made to accept the
position under duress, and that his acceptance of such position was for the good
of the people, He having saved many Filipino lives from Japanese atrocities.

We have carefully analyzed the evidence on record because of the seriousness
of the charges against appellant, and we find that the evidence for the
prosecution is overwhelming, such that appelant’s counse de officio instead of
m’ng a brief, made a manifestation dated November 29, 1955, stating that “after
a thorough study of the records of the case, he finds nothing therein sufficient
to disturb the decisions of the People’s Court and of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo imposing capital punishment on the accused.” Said counsel
further’stated that “The accused’s only evidence which directly attacked the
government’s proofs was his denial of what several witnesses testified to.” This
manifestation was considered by this Tribunal as appellant’s brief, in its
resolution of December 6, 1955. Certainly mere denial by appellant cannot
prevail upon the positive assertion of the witnesses for the government
establishing incriminating facts, for it is a well settled rule of evidence that
as between positive and negative testimony, the former deserves more weight and
credit.

Anent the defense of duress allegedly exerted by the Japanese upon appellant
for which he had to serve in the detective force of the Japanese Army, we agree
with the Solicitor-General that “except the lone and self-serving testimony of
the appellant that he was coerced to cooperate with and serve the Japanese
soldiers, there is not an iota of proof that he was in fact compelled or coerced
by the Japanese. Much less is there any evidence showing that the alleged
compulsion or coercion was grave and imminent.”

“Duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a defense, must be
present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a
well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not
done. A threat of future injury is not enough.” (16 C. J., 91).

“To be available as a defense, the fear must be well-founded, an immediate
and actual danger of death or great bodily harm must be present and the
compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat. It would be a most dangerous rule if a
defendant could shield himself from prosecution for crime by merely setting up a
fear from or because of a threat of a third person.” (Wharton’s Criminal Law,
Vol. 1, Sec. 384).

“Fear as an excuse for crime has never been received by the law. No man, from
fear or circumstances to himself has the right to make himself a party to
committing mischief upon mankind” (Lord Denman in Reg. vs. Tyler, 8 Car. and P.
(Eng.) 616, vs. Duddely, L. R. 14, Q. B. Div. (Eng.) 273).

When the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the
retaking of lost testimonies, appellant attempted to give the case a new twist
by filing a motion to quash on the ground that the pardon extended him has
already extinguished his criminal liability and that his conviction by the
People’s Court had placed him in jeopardy. This motion was denied, but during
the trial appellant was allowed to present documentary evidence relative to the
clemency extended him, consisting of Exhibit 1 which is a certified copy of his
conditional pardon; Exhibit 2, a certified copy of the letter of the Legal
Assistant of the President dated June 30, 1953, addressed to the Director of
Prisons; Exhibit 3 the motion to withdraw appeal filed before the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo; and Exhibit 4, the Tribunal’s resolution of September 21,
1953, granting said withdrawal. In addition, appellant presented an Exhibit 5
the decision of the People’s Court in the case of People vs. Jesus Astrologo,
dated December 11, 1947, sentencing him to death; Exhibit 6 the conditional
pardon extended to said accused dated June 27, 1953; and Exhibit 7 the letter of
the Legal Assistant of the Office of the President to the Director of Prisons,
to show that said Jesus Astrologo who is now enjoying his freedom by reason of
the pardon extended, has been allowed by this Tribunal to withdraw his appeal
pending review of his death sentence.

Regarding the alleged pardon granted to appellant, we reiterate our ruling in
our resolution of October 19, 1953, hereinbefore quoted. As to appellant’s
contention respecting the applicability of the Astrologo case, we find it
untenable, for the Astrologo case (88 Phil., 423) was elevated to us for review
on March 4, 1948; he filed his brief on October 21, 1949, and we rendered
judgment on March 30, 1951, commuting the sentence to life imprisonment for lack
of sufficient vote. The pardon granted him on June 27, 1953, or more than two
years after the final judgment, was therefore in order, and cannot be invoked by
herein appellant as a precedent.

As to the payment of Indemnity in the amount of P2,000 to the respective
heirs of each of the victims of appellant, the Solicitor-General recommends that
this amount imposed by the lower court be increased to P6,000. We find this
Recommendation to be correct, as it is in consonance with the repeated decisions
of this Tribunal on the matter; hence the decision of the lower court should be
amended accordingly. Furthermore, although the facts of the case verily justify
the imposition of death penalty, yet, for lack of sufficient votes said penalty
should be, as it is hereby commuted to reclusion perpetua, in accordance with
law.

Wherefore, and with the modifications above indicated, the decision appealed
from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,
Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.