THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court finding the
appellant, Francisco Concepcion, guilty of treason and sentencing him to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10,000 and the costs.

The appellant was found guilty of treason on three counts, namely: The
apprehension on December 7, 1944, in Cebu City, by the appellant (accompanied by
Japanese) of Basilio Severino. (Count 3.) The apprehension on December 3, 1944,
in Cebu City, by the appellant (accompanied by Japanese and Pablo Labra and
Maximo Bate) of Clemente Chica. (Count 5.) The apprehension on January 9, 1944
in Cebu City, by appellant (accompanied by Manuel Cocon and a Japanese) of
Gavino Moras. The evidence for the prosecution shows that the three individuals
were apprehended by the appellant or at his instigation, due to their guerrilla
connections.

The first error assigned by counsel for the appellant as having been
committed by the lower court has reference to its action in allowing the
prosecution to present evidence of appellant’s Filipino citizenship after the
prosecution had rested its case and the defense had moved for dismissal. This
assignment is untenable, as the matter of reopening a case for the reception of
further evidence after either the prosecution cor the defense has rested is
within the discretion of the trial court (23 C. J. S., par. 1056, pp. 464, 465,
467).

Under the second, third and fourth assignments of error, counsel for the
appellant argues that the charges of which the appellant was convicted have not
been proven in accordance with the two-witness rule. Specifically it is
contended that while prosecution witness Agapito Severino testified that the
appellant, with a Japanese interpreter, arrived at their house and inquired if
his Brother Basilio Severino was at home, and said that the latter was wanted at
the military police headquarters for questioning, the other prosecution witness
Edgardo Severino did not corroborate witness Agapito in this respect. Neither
did the latter corroborate Edgardo as regards the fact that Basilio Severino was
taking a bath and as regards Basilio’s statement that the appellant and his
companions should wait. There may not be corroboration between the two
prosecution witnesses on the points mentioned, but said witnesses are uniform in
their testimony that Bacilio Severino was arrested on December 7, 1944. The
latter important detail constitutes the overt act of treason charged in count
3.

The same consideration may be said regarding the criticism of appellant’s
counsel that there is lack of corroboration on seme details between prosecution
witnesses Melchor Ugayong and Victoriano Cagitla, who, however, testified in
unison on the overt act charged in count 5, namely, the apprehension by
appellant of Clemente Chica.

As to count 6, it is contended by counsel for the defense that the testimony
of the principal witnesses for the prosecution is merely to the effect that the
appellant was waiting below the house of Gavino Moras (who was arrested), and
that it was appellant’s Japanese companions who came down from the house with
said Gavino Moras. This argument is also without merit, it having been
established by at least two witnesses that the appellant and his companions
arrived at the house of Gavino at the same time, from which the conclusion is
inescapable that he actually in a way aided in the apprehension of Gavino
Moras.

It is lastly pretended by counsel for appellant that the latter was an
ex-USAFFE officer and joined the Japanese under duress. There is nothing in the
record which tends to indicate that the appellant apprehended or aided in the
arrest of his victims under actual and imminent threats of death or bodily harm
in case he should do otherwise. Upon the other hand, the evidence shows that he
willingly perpetrated the acts of treason of which he was convicted by the lower
court.

Counsel for the appellant has filed a motion for new trial based di newly
discovered evidence tending to show that the ajrpellant was merely a liaison
officer between the Provincial Government of Cebu and the Japanese Military
Police; that three of the prosecution witnesses are retracting, and that the
Appellant had saved some Filipinos arrested by the Japanese. The first point is
sought to be established by affidavits of two Japanese war prisoners. These are
not entitled to credit, as their affidavits were executed after the defeat of
Japan in the last war, of which fact the Japanese affiants may be assumed to be
aware. Besides, the alleged civilian position of the appellant did not prevent
him from becoming a traitor to his country. Neither are the three retracting
witnesses entitled to credit, since their affidavits are obviously the result of
an afterthought, and if they could have lied during their testimony in court for
some consideration or motive, they can now by the same token commit another
falsity. The alleged circumstance that the appellant helped some of his
countrymen arrested by the Japanese certainly does not exempt him from criminal
liability.

The appealed judgment, being in conformity with the facts and the law, is
affirmed. So ordered with costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

PARAS, J.:

Mr. Justice G. Pablo voted for the affirmance.