THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ELEUTERIO CAÑA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The appellant Eleuterio Cans, was charged in the People’s Court
with treason under seven counts. After trial, he was sentenced to
fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, to pay a fine of P5,000, plus costs.

This is relatively an old case. The reason for the delay in the
determination of the appeal is that it was first received in this Court
and later, because of the penalty imposed by the trial court, was endorsed to the Court of Appeals which apparently had Jurisdiction over
it. However, said Court of Appeals subsequently returned the case to
this Court because according to its resolution, it was of the opinion
that the penalty applicable is reclusion perpetua.

For purposes of reference, we are reproducing the first five counts under which the People’s Court found the appellant guilty:

“1. That said accused, Eleuterio Caña, with intent
to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy, wilfully, feloniously and
treasonably acted and served as puppet Mayor of the Japanese in the
municipality of Abuyog, Leyte, Philippines, from June to October,.
1942, and from November, 1943, to August, 1944, and as such puppet
Mayor he wilfully, feloniously and. treasonably performed the following
acts:

“(a) That he, forced the
people of Abuyog including government employees to dig trenches and wholes and build stables for the Japanese Armed Forces;

“(b)
That, he told the people of Abuyog that the Americans would not return
to the Philippines and that he was not afraid of the Filipino soldiers
and guerrillas because the Japanese Armed Forces were behind him;

“(c) That the people of Abuyog must obey his orders and tell the guerrillas and their relatives to surrender; and

“(d)
That he provided the Japanese soldiers with houses to live and ejected
the Filipino civilians of Abuyog out of their houses to give room to
the Japanese.

“2. That the herein accused,
Eleuterio Caña, with intent to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy,
during his incumbency as puppet Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, Philippines,
especially in November. 1943, February and May, 1944. wilfully,
feloniously and treasonably led, guided and accompanied Japanese
patrols to the barrios of Abuyog to apprehend guerrillas, guerrilla
suspects and their supporters and also to locate their hideouts.

“3.
That during the months of April and May, 1944, the herein accused,
Eleuterio Caña, with intent to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy,
and taking advantage of his position as puppet Municipal Mayor of
Abuyog, Leyte, did then and there wilfully, feloniously and treasonably
force the people to harvest palay in the outlying farms, and did
confiscate the palay taken therefrom, giving part of it to the Japanese
soldiers,

“4. That the herein accused, Eleuterio Caña, with
intent to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy, during the time of his
incumbency as puppet Municipal Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte, did then and
there lead, guide and accompany patrols composed of Japanese and
Constabulary soldiers to the barrios of Himara, Mahapalag, Union, Ogis.
Mahayahay, Polahongon, all in the Layog District, and in the barrios of
Bayabas. Dingle, Combes. Laray, Talegue, Habadyang, sitio Malasiga,
sitio Maitum, parts of barrio Anglad, all of Hogasaan District, which
patrols machinegunned and burned the houses in the above-mentioned
places.

“5. That sometime during the month of July, 1944,
the herein accused, Eleuterio Caña, with intent to give aid and/or
comfort to the enemy, during his incumbency as puppet Mayor of Abuyog,
Leyte, wilfully, feloniously and treasonably informed the Japanese
soldiers that Basilio Pacatan who was then detained in the Japanese
garrison of Abuyog as a guerrilla suspect, was the father-in-law of the
guerrilla lieutenant named Nicolas Camintoy. and due to this
information, said Basilio Pacatan was investigated, imprisoned and
tortured by the Japanese soldiers for a period of over thirty days.”

In open court the accused admitted that he was and had always been a Filipino citizen.

The following facts are not disputed. In the last elections held
before the last World (Pacific) War, Pedro Gallego and the defendant
Eleuterio Caña were elected Mayor and Vice Mayor respectively, for the
town of Abuyog, Leyte. When the Japanese forces went to Abuyog in June,
1942, they found the town without a Mayor because Gallego served as
town chief executive only up to May, 1942, after which he went to the
mountains and joined the guerrilla forces as a Major. The appellant
being the Vice Mayor-elect, was designated Acting Mayor by the
Provincial Governor and he acted as such from June to October, 1942,
when the Japanese garrison was removed from the town. Again, he acted
as Mayor from November, 1943 when another Japanese garrison was
stationed there, until August, 1944, when the garrison was withdrawn.
The acts of treason of which he was accused were supposedly committed
during his incumbency as Acting Mayor of Abuyog.

Under the first count, we find from the evidence that the defendant
really recruited laborers to dig trenches, foxholes and air raid
shelters around the Japanese garrison and in some streets, and to build
stables for the Japanese cavalry houses. It has also been established
that the accused had intervened in the commandeering of private
dwellings to house the Japanese soldiers and officers stationed in the
town, altho there is evidence to the effect that rent was paid by said
Japanese forces for the use of these houses.It was also proven that in
the poblacion of Abuyog as well as in some barrios, such as Malagikay,
Anlag and San Roque he called people to meetings where he made speeches
in the Visayan dialect, telling the people that the real government was
the one established and sponsored by the Japanese; that the Americans
will never come back to the Philippines because they were afraid of the
Japanese forces who were stronger; that they must pay their taxes for
the support of the Japanese-sponsored government; and that he
(defendant) was not afraid of the guerrillas because the Japanese Army
was behind him.

Considering the fact that the accused was then acting as Mayor of
his town and under orders of the Japanese garrison commander, there is
every reason to believe that defendant’s act in recruiting laborers for
the construction of trenches, foxholes, air raid shelters and stables
for the use of the Japanese forces was in obedience to the wishes and
orders of the Japanese commander. The same thing may be said of the
commandeering of private houses. It is a matter of public knowledge,of
which we may take judicial notice, that during the occupation, not
infrequently, the enemy forces resorted to forced labor to fill in
their military needs and also commandeered indiscriminately private
houses not only for their accommodation but even for that of their
civilian agencies, and that in such cases the services or intervention
of the executive of the town were availed of, voluntarily or otherwise.
Furthermore, we agree with the Solicitor General that these acts of
collaboration, including his making speeches during the meetings called
by him, endorsing the Japanese regime may be considered as political in
nature and are covered by Amnesty Proclamation No. 51 of January 1,
1948, which he now invokes (People vs. Alvero, 86 Phil., 58.). We may therefore discard count No. 1.

Under counts 2 and 4, is the following evidence:

Bonifacio Laher, barrio lieutenant of Anlag, Abuyog stated that on
February 2, 1944, a Japanese patrol of about 80 soldiers arrived at his
barrio, headed by the defendant Caña who was armed with a revolver.
Caña called a meeting which about 60 residents attended. The accused
made a speech in the Visayan dialect and asked the people about the
whereabouts of Major Gallego and Captain Landia of the guerrillas,
saying that if they ever came with their forces, the residents should
report the matter to him or to the Japanese garrison. He told his
hearers that the Japanese government was the real government. The
patrol spent the night in the barrio and the witness as lieutenant of
the barrio was ordered by the accused to return the following morning
to accompany the patrol. The next day, February 3rd, Laher accompanied
the accused and the Japanese troops to the mountains. On reaching sitio
Malasiga, the patrol passed by the houses of Gonzalo Albanque and
Rosendo Fortaleza, and the latter was called from his house and made to
join the patrol to the house of Daniel Bolero where the soldiers ate
pineapples and papaya. The defendant asked Bolero who were the owners
of the two houses they had passed and on being informed that they
belonged to Ablanque and Fortaleza, appellant exclaimed: “These are the
houses where the guerrillas used to live.” Thereafter, the defendant
conversed with Capt. Mikawa who commanded the patrol, after which,
Mikawa called two Japanese soldiers and ordered them to burn the houses
of Ablanque and Fortaleza. At the time said two houses contained
agricultural products of different kinds, including furniture and
household goods. According to Fortaleza, he pleaded with the defendant
not to burn his house, but the accused paid no attention to him and the
two houses were burned to the ground,

Laureano Pacia, a Captain of the guerrillas told the court that on
February 3rd, a Japanese patrol of about 80 soldiers headed by the
accused who was then armed with a revolver, arrived at the barrio of
Anlag. The next day the patrol went to the barrio of Malagikay. Pacia
followed the patrol at a safe distance in order to observe as per
instructions of his superiors. He saw that in Malagikay the Japanese
Soldiers shot pigs and chickens for food. The defendant called the
people to attend a meeting in front of the barrio school building at
which meeting he spoke and asked about the guerrillas, particularly
Major Gallego and Capt. Landia. He urged his hearers to fight them (the
guerrillas) if they ever came and to report their presence to the
poblacion. After the defendant, a lieutenant of the Philippine
Constabulary also spoke.

About these doings of the defendant and the Japanese patrol in
Malagikay, Pacia was corroborated by Major Gallego who was with Pacia
observing what was happening and listening to the speeches,
particularly that of the defendant.

Major Gallego in his testimony also told the People’s Court that on
May 27, 1944 he saw the defendant Caña armed with a revolver at the
head of a Japanese patrol composed of about 80 soldiers in the barrio
of San Roque, Abuyog, They shot pigs and chickens for food and in the
afternoon, they rang the school bell and assembled the people, and at
the meeting the defendant made a speech in the Visayan dialect, asking
the people if there were any guerrillas in the vicinity, telling them
that if they (guerrillas) came, the people should not give them food so
that they would starve, and to report their presence to the town so
that the Japanese forces could come and catch them. He urged the people
to help the government, the real government sponsored by the Japanese,
and not to wait for the Americans who will never come back. With
sarcasm he told the people that if they were still interested in the
Americans, they had better swim across the Pacific Ocean to get to them
in America, At the time that the accused spoke, there were no Japanese
around him. In his testimony about the arrival of the Japanese patrol
in San Roque and the speech of the appellant, Gallego was corroborated
by Felix Balga who added that the defendant in his speech said that to
show that the government sponsored by the Japanese was the true
government, he (defendant) was accompanying the Japanese patrol.

Pelagio Elmeda stated to the court that on February 2, 1944, he was
at his post at barrio Bayabas on duty as captain of the Volunteer
Guards attached to the guerrillas under orders of Capt. Landia. On that
date, he saw a Japanese patrol of about 80 soldiers headed by the
accused pass by the said barrio of Bayabas, apparently the same patrol
that later went to the barrio of Anlag and still later to the barrio of
Malagikay on February 4th. The accused was then carrying a revolver.
When the patrol saw no people in the said barrio the soldiers burned
all the five houses in the vicinity. The owners of said houses were
then in the mountains, having evacuated thereto because of fear of the
Japanese.

Under count 3, Filomeno Tupa and Marcial Costen testified to the
effect that the defendant as Mayor asked the people in the poblacion of
Abuyog belonging to the neighborhood associations to go out to the
farms and under the protection of Japanese soldiers, harvest palay
therefrom; that one-half of the harvest was given to the harvester;
one-fourth to the municipality and the remaining one-fourth to the
Japanese garrison to feed its cavalry forces. The evidence on this
point, however, further shows that almost invariably, the owners of
these lands had evacuated to the mountains, and that said owners were
afraid to harvest their own palay for fear of the Japanese soldiers who
might suspect them of harvesting said palay to give to the guerrillas
who frequented the farms. There is reason to believe and conclude from
the evidence that these harvests of palay directed by the defendant
were not made with the intention of aiding the enemy but rather to
avoid loss or prevent the ripe palay from rotting in the fields and to
utilize the harvest to aid the people. As already stated, one-half of
the harvest was given to the people who effected the harvest and
one-fourth was given to the municipality, said portion according to the
uncontradicted evidence for the defense having been utilized to feed
the indigent people, and that a portion of it was sent to the capital
(Tacloban) presumably, for the same purpose of aiding the poor in the
province.

It will be remembered that during the occupation there was no
importation of rice in order to make up for the deficiency, our
production being insufficient for the needs of the population, and that
if the palay crop belonging to those who had evacuated to the mountains
was not harvested the critical food situation would have worsened. It
is not difficult to see that members of the neighborhood associations
living in the poblacion of Abuyog and needing rice for their
consumption, may have even suggested to the defendant to harvest the
palay in the outlying districts under the protection of the Japanese
soldiers against the guerrillas. Among the farms where palay was then
growing and ready for harvest there must have been some which belonged
to these very members of neighborhood associations living in the
poblacion who, fearing that the guerrillas would interfere with the
harvest of their own palay, asked for protection from the Japanese
forces.

As to the one-fourth portion of the harvest given to the Japanese
garrison, undoubtedly, said portion was given pursuant to the wishes
and orders of said garrison for its needs and also in return for the
protection services rendered by its soldiers during the harvest. We
find that under the circumstances, the defendant cannot be held liable
under this count No. 3.

Under count 5, Basilio Pacatan, 69 years of age, stated in court
that on June 1, 1944, a Japanese patrol composed of about 44 soldiers
headed by the defendant who was then armed with a revolver came to the
barrio of Quarry, Abuyog and found him pasturing his carabao. Some of
the soldiers in the patrol caught him, tied his hands behind his back
and then took him to the main body of the patrol where the defendant
was. He was asked about Capt. Landia and Capt. Nicolas Camintoy, his
(Pacatan’s) son-in-law, both of the guerrillas. He told them that when
Col. Kangleon passed by that place he took some of the residents with
him, presumably including Camintoy. The defendant Caña told Pacatan
that until his son-in-law, Nicolas, surrendered he (Pacatan) will be
kept as a hostage. After being slapped and kicked by the Japanese
soldiers he was taken to the garrison in the poblacion and imprisoned
there for a month and a half. As regards his arrest and his being tied
and taken to the poblacion, Pacatan was corroborated by his stepson Pio
Balida who stated that in the Japanese patrol there were four
Filipinos, among them the defendant Caña. He said that he saw all this
because at the time he was with his stepfather Pacatan altho at some
distance from him.

In connection with the imprisonment of Basilic Pacatan in the
Japanese garrison in the poblacion of Abuyog, Filomeno Tupa and Marcial
Costen in their testimonies said that the accused had, once stated
within their hearing that he would oppose the release of Basilio
Pacatan unless his son-in-law, Nicolas Camintoy, a captain in the
guerrilla first surrendered, and that when a delegation composed of
leaders of neighborhood associations went to petition the Japanese
captain for the release of Pacatan, saying that he was a good man, the
defendant who was present voiced his objection to the release unless
his (Pacatan’s) guerrilla son-in-law, Nicolas Camintoy, first
surrendered, as a result of which Pacatan’s release was refused by the
Japanese officer. It was further stated that the defendant enjoyed the
confidence of the Japanese officers, in proof of which, he had
previously obtained the release of three prisoners, C. Tan, Barcelo and
Briones who had sons in the guerrilla forces and who promised to have
said sons surrender to the Japanese.

In his defense, the appellant with his witnesses tried to prove
that although he accompanied the Japanese patrols in their
reconnaissance trips to the barrios, he did so not of his own free will
but under compulsion by the Japanese officer of the garrison. He also
said that he acted merely as interpreter of the Japanese officer who
spoke at the meetings held in the barrios. The People’s Court did not
believe this claim of the defendant and we find nothing in the record
to warrant correcting and disturbing this mental attitude and action of
the People’s Court. There is ample evidence to show that when appellant
spoke in the barrios as head of the Japanese patrols, he did not act as
a mere interpreter but that he made his own speeches. Many times there
were no Japanese around when he spoke because the members of the patrol
were either going around the barrio or the houses evidently checking up
and looking for guerrillas, or doing things looking toward their
accommodation and shelter for the night or preparing their meals from
the pigs and chickens they had previously shot. And the vehemence or
apparent sincerity of the accused in his speeches wherein he urged the
people to support the municipal government which he headed, to report
the presence of guerrillas in the barrios and to abandon all hope of
the return of the Americans because they were afraid of the Japanese
soldiers, sufficiently shows that he went with the patrols voluntarily
and of his own free will. He was really determined to suppress the
guerrilla movement in his locality as may be inferred from his speeches
but also from his strong opposition to the release from the garrison of
Basilio Pacatan unless the latter’s son-in-law first surrendered. His
action in telling the Japanese officer of the patrol in the sitio of
Malasiga that the houses of Ablanque and Fortaleza had been occupied by
the guerrillas, followed by his private conference with said Japanese
officer, after which said two houses were set on fire and burned to the
ground despite the pleas of Fortaleza with him, fortifies this belief
and finding.

Considering all the evidence submitted, we agree with the People’s
Court and the Solicitor General that appellant is guilty under counts
2, 4 and 5. Ordinarily, in the absence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree,
namely, reclusion perpetua as opined by the Court of Appeals.
However, taking a broad view of the case, we are inclined to impose a
lighter penalty as did the People’s Court. We must bear in mind that
treason is not an ordinary and everyday offense which must be
considered and punished according to the presence or absence of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances provided for in the Revised
Penal Code. It is a very serious crime committed during war by one who,
forgetting his loyalty and oath of allegiance to his own country, aids
the enemy and gives it aid and comfort. The amount or degree of said
aid or comfort given the enemy as well as the gravity of the separate
and distinct acts of treason committed.by the accused, rather than the
circumstances aggravating or mitigating attending its commission,
determine the degree of the penalty to be imposed. This Court as a
rule, has imposed the death penalty upon treason inductees proven not
only to have aided the enemy but also while giving such aid, to have
either tortured or killed their own countrymen, and even then, only
when the necessary number of votes was secured. Where the necessary
number of votes could not be obtained even when the defendant was
guilty of killing or torturing his own countrymen, the penalty imposed
has been reclusion perpetua. Where the acts of treason by a
defendant in a treason case, consist in acting as a spy for the
Japanese, as a result of which guerrillas or guerrilla suspects were
tortured or killed by the Japanese forces themselves without any direct
participation by the defendant, the punishment imposed has invariably
been reclusion perpetua, that is to say, the penalty for
treason in its medium period. And when the acts proven against an
accused has been acting as informer merely and spy for tie enemy
resulting merely in the temporary confinement of guerrilla suspects, we
have imposed the penalty in its minimum, namely, reclusion temporal.
In other words, we have punished the commission of treason on the basis
of the seriousness of the treasonable acts, and of the presence or
absence of atrocities on the victims, rather than on the presence or
absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Here, there has
been no killing, not even torture of prisoners, at least not on the
part of the appellant. The People’s Court may have been imbued with
this same attitude and viewpoint when it imposed an imprisonment of 15
years without making any reference to the existence of aggravating or
mitigating circumstances. We might add that the fact that the appellant
has been in jail since the beginning of the year 1946 when he was first
indicted, inclines us to take a liberal and beginning view of his case.

Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, and Bautista, JJ., concur.