G.R. No. L-4999. May 25, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO GERONA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
LABRADOR, J.:
Cebu, Honorable Florentino Saguin presiding, finding Pedro Gerona
guilty of treason with robbery, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000.00 to indemnify
the offended party Placido Lopez in the sum of P1,600 for the effects
that he had taken away, and to pay the costs.
The information under which the herein accused-appellant was
tried in an amended information dated October 4, 1950, charging the
accused-appellant on five counts. The court found him guilty on three
counts, that of having acted as a spy, investigating Placido Lopez of
guerrilla activities and robbing him of jewels and clothes worth
P1,600.00; that of having investigated Fidel Oberes and Lorenzo Amfre
for being guerrillas or volunteer guards and beating them; and that of
having caused the arrest of one Victoriano Primacia, investigating him
for being a guerrilla, and beating him in the course of the
investigation, the said Victoriano Primacia having thereafter
disappeared without coming back to him home.
On counts 1 and 2, the evidence for the prosecution shows that
in the evening of November 3, 1944, after 9:00 o’clock,
accused-appellant went up the house of Placido Lopez at Calamba street,
Cebu City, accompanied by Franciso Lopez, Placido’s brother. Placido
Lopez had just put out the light, and as appellant herein knocked at the
door and Placido opened it, appellant immediately gave him a blow on
the face with his fist, knocking him down. Placido was asked about one
Quirino (Torres), a guerrilla, and for Placido’s revolver, and as
Placido denied the whereabouts of said Quirino and having any revolver
at all, appellant hanged him and beat him. For his part, Francisco was
brought to a nearby room and was also investigated and maltreated by
Tenebro, a companion spy of the appellant. While the appellant and his
companion were investigating and beating the Lopezes, appellant’s
Japanese companion ransacked the wardrobe and effects of Placido and
took away cash, jewels, and clothing all amounting in value to
P1,600.00. After the investigation and after taking away the articles
above-mentioned, appellant and his companions took Placido and Francisco
to a station at the Redemptorist church. From here they were taken the
following day to a certain house belonging to one Paulin, which was
used as Kempetai headquarters. Here they were again investigated, their
hands tied at the back, then suspended from the air, and beaten with a
baseball bat. The companions of the appellant in conducting the
investigation and maltreating the two brothers were one Ato Adlawan and
Tenebro, both well known spies for the Japanese. The two brothers,
however, were allowed to go away on the occasion of an American air raid
on Cebu City.
The evidence submitted on count No. 5 is to the effect that on
December 23, 1944, Fidel Oberes, Lorenzo Amfre, and others started on a
sailboat from Cebu bound for Bohol, with the intention of evacuating to
Clarin, Bohol. While they were between Talisay and Bag-ong Banua, a
Japanese patrol launch detained them and towed them to Cebu City. Fidel
Oberes, Lorenzo Amfre, and others were arrested by two Japanese
undercovers, Placido Lastimosa and Isidro Cabonesas, who brought them,
with their hands tied at the back, to a place near the San Nicolas
church. From there they were brought to the headquarters of the
Japanese kempetai, and there they were investigated by a Japanese
undercover by the name of Ate Adlawan. Fidel Oberes was later brought
to a room where he was investigated by the appellant herein Pedro
Gerona. The appellant asked Oberes the amount of fish and corn that his
(Oberes’) mother had contributed to the guerrillas, but Oberes replied
that he did not know as he seldom saw his mother, and the latter had
just enough to make a living. After that appellant asked him again who
among his companions were volunteer guards, but Oberes denied the charge
that any one of them was a volunteer guard. The companions of Oberes
were also investigated by the companions of Gerona. Thereafter they
were brought to a house on Figueroa street, and while they were brought
to a house on Figueroa street, and while they were walking appellant put
his arm around Oberes’ shoulder and under threats asked him to tell the
truth and admit that he was a volunteer guard. When they reached the
house at Figueroa street, Tenebro was ordered to tie Oberes’ hand at the
back, and after he was so tied he was given blows on the face by both
appellant and Tenebro. It was while they were thus confined that Oberes
saw Victoriano Primacia and Juan Unabia got down from the truck at the
house where they were detained, and they were also investigated and
maltreated by Gerona. Both Oberes and Amfre were detained in that house
on Figueroa street from December 23 to December 31.
In so far as Lorenzo Amfre is concerned, it was the appellant
who also investigated him, and questions were asked him whether or not
he was a guerrilla or a volunteer guard. As Amfre made denials, Gerona
struck him in the mouth and back, as a consequence of which four of his
front teeth, two up and two down, were pulled out.
On the sixth count, the evidence for the prosecution is to the
effect that on December 26, 1944, while Lebiosa Unabia Primacia was at
home in Minglanilla, Cebu two Filipino spies came and asked her for her
husband, Victoriano Primacia. She told them that he was in the house of
Attorney Juezan, where he was playing majhong. After this she saw her
husband being conducted from the housde of Juezan, with both hands tied
at the back, and appellant Gerona with him. Gerona questioned him,
charging him with being a G.I. or a guerrilla, and showing a list
supposed to contain the names of G.I. members. Primacia’s brother was
also charged with being G.I. and investigated and maltreated. After the
investigation both brothers were taken to the headquarters of the
Japanese kempetai. As Gerona and his companions took them away,
Victoriano Primacia’s wife was told that both her husband and the
latter’s brother were guilty. Since their arrest Victoriano Primacia
has never returned.
The prosecution proved and the appellant admitted that he is a
Filipino. The evidence submitted by the prosecution on the above facts
satisfies the two-witness rule.
The defense presented by the defendant-appellant are a denial
and an alibi. He admits that he had been close to the Japanese because
he had a big business selling them tires, batteries, frigidaires,
electrical supplies, etc., but claims that he left Cebu before the end
of October, 1944, evacuating to Clarin, Bohol, where he was investigated
and detained as a Japanese spy and jailed in the guerrilla barracks
until March, 1945.
Witnesses were submitted by defendant-appellant to disprove the
charge that he was in Cebu acting as spy. The first one is Dario Rama,
but his testimony is limited to stating that he did not see appellant
in T. Padilla street after the bombing. The evident reason is because
by that time the appellant, after leaving his store, which was hit by
bombs, joined the Japanese kempetai. Furthermore, this witness declared
that he left T. Padilla street and went to live in another place, and
merely stated that he did not know what appellant was engaged in after
November 20.
Another witness presented by the defense is one Jose R.
Makawili, who claims to have seen Victoriano Unabia arrested, then to
have evacuated to Clarin, Bohol, with Unabia’s family, and to have seen
appellant in Clarin, Bohol, then already under detention. But the wife
of Unabia denied having been with this witness on their trip to Bohol,
which took place on December 31, not December 28, as claimed by this
witness. This witness knowledge about Unabia’s arrest is also put to
doubt by his allegation that the arrest took place in Unabia’s house,
whereas Unabia’s wife and daughter testified that the arrest took place
in another house.
A third witness, Samson Sabalones, declared that he was
appellant detained in Clarin, Bohol, one week after October 29, or about
November 10. This is in conflict with the testimony of Placido Lopez
and Francisco Lopez, who positively identified appellant as the one who
arrested them on November 10. It is to be noted that this witness
declared that the commanding officer of the battalion or company by whom
appellant was detained was one Pedro Camacho, yet this supposed
commanding officer was not produced in court to testify.
Appellant himself testified that he left Cebu on October 13,
1944, arriving at Clarin, Bohol, on October 17, 1944, and that thereupon
the volunteer guards subjected him to an investigation, and thereafter
detained him until March, 1945.
The trial court did not give credit to the denials of the
defendant-appellant and his supposed absence in Cebu during the days
when his victims were arrested. We find no reason or ground for
disturbing this finding. We have carefully read the testimonies of the
witnesses, and while those for the prosecution were clear, positive, and
direct as to appellant’s identity as the spy who caused the arrest,
those of the defense are mere denials, general assertions, lacking that
concreteness and details as to facts and circumstances characteristic of
truthful testimony.
The only argument of counsel for appellant which calls for
serious consideration is the improbability of appellant’s responsibility
for the arrest of Victoriano Primacia in view of the fact that the
latter was close to appellant, having been the one responsible for
appellant’s marriage to Lina Nolasco, a teacher under Victoriano Unabia.
It is to be noted, however, that appellant was not alone when Unabia
was arrested. He was with two other undercovers, and he could not have
evaded his duties. Besides, the wife of Unabia would not have testified
against appellant if it were not true that he was with the raiding
party.
It can be stated, however, in mitigation of appellant’s
responsibility, that the evidence does not show that he ever maltreated
Unabia or that he was responsible for his execution. Under these
circumstances, it would seem that the penalty imposed by the trial
court, that of life imprisonment, is not in accord with other decisions
of this Court, which have imposed only an imprisonment of 15 years for
those who have acted as Japanese spies, maltreating guerrillas, without
being responsible for their death or execution.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed in all
respects, except that the sentence imposed is hereby reduced to
imprisonment for not less than 15 years of reclusion temporal.
With costs against the appellant.
Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor,
Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.