THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DOROTEO ABARINTOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

HILADO, J.:



body {
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:80%;
background-color:#FFFFFF;
margin:0 2% 0 2%;
text-align: justify;
}
h1 {
font-family:times;
}
h2 {
background-color:#cccccc;
padding:10px 0 10px 0;
font-weight: bold;
text-align: center;
}
h3 {
font-weight: bold;
text-transform: uppercase;
text-align: center;
}
div#footer
{
font-size:9px; 

Doroteo Abarintos, having been convicted by the people13 Court of the crime
of treason for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessories of the law, and a fine of P10,000 plus the costs, were imposed upon
him, has appealed to this court, assigning three errors a3 having been committed
in the judgmentof conviction. Said errors are alleged in substance to consiat in
the court a quo having given credence to the evidence of the prosecution rather
than to that of the defense. The trial was had before the Third Branch of the
people’s Court composed of judges Jose Bautista, Arsenio P. Dizon and Tiburcio
Tancinco. After carefully weighing the evidence for the prosecution as well as
that for the defense, we find no ground for disturbing the trial court’s
findings of facto the more so when we consider the distinct advantage of said
court over this in having heard and aecn the witnesses testify and observed
their demeanor while testifying.

Counts 1 and 3 in the information and under which appellant has been
convicted are the only ones involved in this appeal. We shall proceed; briefly
to state ths pertinent facts.

Appellant’s citizenship as a Pilipino has been proven, by, the records in
Bilibid Prisons consisting of his identification record, Exhibit “A” a certified
copy whereof is Exhibit “Exhibit A-1” and his Patutoo ng
Pagkamamamayan, Exhibit “B” from which it appears that he was born on March
27, 1916, of Filipino parents, in Rosario Batangas and that his nationality is
Filipino. Virgilio cujrugan, identification clerk of the Bureau of
Priaons, testified without having been oontradicted that appellant himself
furnished. the data appearing in the said documents.

As to count 1, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant
adhered to the enemy giving him .aid and comfort by joining and working as a an
Informer of the Japanese Kempeitai, a well-known military police organization
created by the Japanese Army and which had set up a station in Lipa, Batangas.
Gregorio Hernandez and Reynaldo Silva declared that appellant was often seen
during the latter part of 1944 and early 1945, going in and out of the Head of
the Kempeitai in Lipa Batangas, in restaurants, gambling places, and
the cockpit with Makapilis from Laguna and members of the Japanese
Military police. Gregorio Hernandez, Luis Atienza, Reynaldo Silva, Gervacio de
Torres, Francisco Leyesa, and Primitivo Mea Testified that appelant used to
carry a pistol. According to Gregorio Hernandez and Reynaldo Silva, he was
wearing khaki pants and white shirt on the occasions that they saw him. Gregorio
Hernandez and Luis Atlenza,saw him wearing a badge with Japanese characters on
his left breast. Gregorio Hernandez Luis Atienza, Reynaldo silva and Gervasio de
Torres, saw him wearing a white armband with Japanese characters. Gregorio
Hernandez further stated that appellant acted as driver for the Japanese
Kempeitai, a,fact admitted by the appellant himself, although
pretending that he was forced to do so.

Upon cross-examination, Gregorio Hernandez further declared that appellant
used to go with the Japanese and Makapilis, talking about guerrillas
whom they wanted to arrest;- that appellant was the one who pointed out the
guerrillas to the Japanese; that he used to see appellant with one Boromeda, a
Makapili, and two Japanese go to the house of one Dr. Gonzales, the head of the
Makapilis, which was used as a Makapili rendezvous, to peep through a
hole, especially on Sundays, and point out to the Japanese suspected guerrillas
as they passed by; and that afterwards the persons thus indicated by him would
be arrested. Upon redirect examination, the witness clarified this point by
referring to a diagram of the relative positions between his observation point
and the house of Dr. Gonzales.

As such informer and spy, appellant accompanied the Japanese
Kempeitai in raids. On December 4, 1944, Luis Atienza and Reynaldo
Silva saw him accompanying Japanese soldiers to the house of Luis Atienza in the
barrio of Mataas na Lupa» Lipa, Batangas, and arrested Alfredo Atienza, the son
of Luis. The same Luis Atienza implored appellant to intercede but the latter;
answered that it was not possible because Alfredo was a guerrilla.

Sometime in 1945, Cenon Macasaet and several, persons were eating at a
certain place when suddenly they heard women screaming and shouting that the
Japanese were coming and that he and one Alfredo Aguilera were caught and tied,
told to fall in line and taken to the Japanese garrison in the house of Dr.
Patid, with appellant at the head of the line and leading the arrested persons.
Witness Leonardo Rodelas testified that on February 17, 1945, appellant led
another Japanese patrol to the barrio of paguilingan Bata Lipa, in which
expedition appellant took a very active part. The Japanese soldiers with the
accused arrived early in the morning and went to the house of Rodelas and
ordered the men to go doim. Once they were down, their hands were tied and they
were taken to a place about 100 meters away from the house. More captives were
brought by the Japanese. Thereupon, appellant approached a woman and asked her,
“Why did your husband run away? We are here to hold a meeting and give you
passes.” Appellant then went around and told the women to call their husbands.
The barrio was afterwards burned and several persons were killed. Thereafter,
the Japanese with appellant left between twelve noon and one o’clock in the
afternoon of that day. All these facts were originally covered “by Count 2 but
at the conclusion of the evidence, the prosecution requested that the same be
considered as part of the evidence supporting Count 1.

As to Count 3, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that early in
the afternoon of February 13, 1945, appellant armed with a revolver and a bolo
and three other spies accompanied Japanese soldiera in the barrio of Santo Nino,
Lipa, Batangas, and told the people there to leave their barrio bedause their
houses would be burned, was a result the barrio people fled to the bank of the
Calamias River. When they were already on that spot, their houses were bumed.
After that they were surrounded by the accused, other spies and Japanese
soldiers and taken to the Kicordon River about one kilometer from the Calamias
River. With the people, about 200 in number, gathered on the bank of the
Kicordon River, those who had passes were segregated from those who had none,
and the hands of those in both groups were tied behind their backs and in pairs
with torn blankets by ippellant, other spies and Japanese soldiers. Those who
had passes were first taken to the upper bank of the Kicordon River and killed.
Appellant helped his bove-mentioned companions in bringing the people two ytwo
from the place of assembly to the place of exeution. After the killing of those
who had passes, those who had none were murdered. Among the unfortunate victims
of that butchery, forty were known by names by the witnesses. Among the
witnesses who testified were Gervasio de Torres, Francisco Leyesa and Primitivo
Mea, fortunate survivors of the heinous massacre.

The facts of record fully established that appellant is guilty of treason as
found by the trial court. The Solicitor-General, disagreeing with the trial
court, contends that appellant is guilty of the complex crime of treason with
multiple murder, to sustain his charge of murder against said appellant, he
points to appellant’s participation in the apprehension of about 200 barrio
people mentioned in appellee’s brief and in the tieing of the hands of said
people while they were on the bank of the Kicordan River. It is not pretended
that appellant took a direct part in the actual killing of any of those persons,
and considering the well-known practice of the Japanese Army of tieing people’s
hands when making arrests, we do not see sufficiently clearly from the evidence
that appellant knew when helping the Japanese the the hands of those
individuals, that the Japenese intended to kill them. On the contrary, from the
admitted fact that those individuals were “civilians, it would be far-fetched to
suppose that appellant thought or believed that the Japanese were going to kill
them, instead of merely holding them under custody. At any rate, we entertain
reasonable doubt as to this point.

It is an established doctrine of this Court (U. S. vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil., 38)
that immediate participation in the criminal design entertained by a slayer is
essential to the responsibility of one who is alleged to have taken a direct
part in the crime as a principal but who has not himself inflicted a wound
really contributing to the death and thatt his criminal participation in the
criminal resolution of the slayer is a substantive fact that must be clearly
deducible from all the circumstances taken together. Consequently, we hold
against the Solicitor-General’s contention that the crime committed is the
complex one of treason with multiple murder.

The element of adherence to the enemy has been clearly established from the
vdry overt acts committed by appellant, acts which in thanselves constitute
treason. This adherence becomes the more pronounced when we consider that
appellant committed the acts alleged in count 1 in December, 1944, when the Army
of Liberation had already been on Philippine soil (Leyte) for two full months
before, and were rapidly advancing and expanding to other parts of the
archipelago, and those charged in count 3 were committed when powerful elements
of the same Army had already entered the City of Manila ten days before, with
the invader in full retreat, thus making the latter’s defeat clear and
imminent.

The judgement appealed from is therefore affirmed, with cocsts against
appellant. So ordered.

Paras, Actg. C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones,
Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.