THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. POLICARPIO RUIZ, 2.o, MAXIMO AGNI, 2.o, ADRIANO VELASCO AND FLORENTINO ROSARIO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

In the afternoon of February 6, 1943, while Maximo Agni, 1.o, was
with his family in his house in barrio Salpad, San Nicolas, Pangasinan,
he was arrested and taken away by a group of five guerrillas, namely,
Adriano Velasco, Florentino Rosario, Severino Gora, Federico Pora, and
one Sapanta, accompanied by two civilians named Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o, and Maximo Agni, 2.o.
Several days afterwards, human remains already in a state of
decomposition and being devoured by scavenger dogs were found some
distance from said barrio and identified as those of Maximo Agni, 1.o.

On the basis of the above facts, the chief of police of San
Nicolas, after liberation.filed a complaint for murder in the justice
of the peace court against the five guerrillas and two civilians above
named, but as only four of them were apprehended, only those four were
made defendants in the information for murder which the provincial
fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. They are
Adriano Velasco (alias Pediong), Florentine Rosario, Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o, and Maximo Agni, 2.o.

The above facts are not disputed. But the accused put up the defense
that the deceased was a Japanese spy and that as such he was ordered
arrested and executed by Lieut. Pioquinto, then head of a guerrilla
unit operating in those parts. And for the two last named accused, who
are civilians, it was further claimed that they merely accompanied the
guerrillas to the house of the deceased and did not participate in his
arrest and execution.

In connection with the deceased’s alleged activities as a spy, the
defense presented four witnesses who testified that on December 12,
1942, they saw the deceased in the company of Japanese soldiers who
were then rounding up suspects; that the suspects were taken to a
school building in barrio San Isidro, San Nicolas, and there the
deceased pointed out to the Japanese the guerrilla soldiers named
Santiago Alagano, Mateo Ramoa, Cornelia Dulay, and Eusebio Bisaya, who
thereafter were never heard from. Two of those witnesses were among
those arrested but later released, while the other two were the widows
of the arrested guerrillas Santiago Alagano and Cornelio Dulay. The
widows also declaimed that the matter was reported by them to
Lieutenant Pioquinto.

The four defendants also took the stand, and their combined
testimony tends to show that two of them, Adriano Velasco and
Florentino Rosario, were members of the Pioquinto guerrilla unit which
was operating in those parts; Florentino. being a corporal; that at
about 4 p.m. on February 6, 1943, they were ordered by Lt. Pioquinto to
go with Severino Gora, Federico Pora, and one Zapanta and arrest the
deceased Maximo Agni, 1.o; that upon reaching Salpad that same afternoon, they inquired of their co-defendant Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o
where the house of Maximo Agni was and requested him to accompany them
there; that thinking that they were looking for the defendant Maximo
Agni, 2.o, Ruiz took them to the house of the latter; that when they tried to put Maximo Agni, 2.o,
under arrest, he protested, saying that he had not pointed out any
guerrillas to the Japanese and that possibly it was another Maximo Agni
that they were looking for; that they then had him accompany them to
the house of this other Agni, i.e., Maximo Agni, 1.o, and
when they got there they arrested the latter, bound his hands, took him
to the camp and there turned him over to Lieutenant Pioquinto, who,
after an investigation in which he admitted having really pointed out
the guerrillas to the Japanese, ordered him executed the following
morning notwithstanding his plea for forgiveness.

Despite this defense, the trial court found the four defendants
guilty of murder and,. disregarding their plea for amnesty, sentenced
them to the corresponding penalty. From this sentence the defendants
have appealed.

After going over the evidence, we agree with the defense that this sentence should be revoked.

It is true that, as testified to by some of the witnesses, the defendants Policarpio Ruiz, 2.^o, and Maximo Agni, 2.^o, had a land dispute with the deceased Maximo Agni, 1.o,
dating back to pre-war days. But it also appears from the testimony of
a son of the deceased that some kind of a deed had already been signed
by the deceased conveying the land to Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o, and in any event it does not seem probable that, for that matter alone, Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o and Maximo Agni, 2.o would plot against the deceased Maximo Agni, 1.o and have him executed by the gtierrillas, it appearing that Ruiz and the deceased were cousins, while Maximo Agni, 2.o
was a nephew of the deceased. Neither is it probable that the
guerrillas on their part, simply because they had been furnished food
by Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o and Maximo Agni, 2.o, would make common cause with them in their quarrel with the deceased and kill the latter as a spy if, in fact, he was not. as.

The truth, as we see it, must have been, as related by the
witnesses for the defense, that the deceased was ordered executed by
Lieutenant Pioquinto because of complaints received by the latter
regarding his activities as a spy.

There is nothing to the suggestion of the prosecution that the
Pioquinto guerrilla unit was not a recognized unit. To be entitled to
the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation, guerrillas who have committed
acts violative of the Revised Penal Code did not have to belong to any
recognized unit, and, indeed, it matters not whether the perpetrators were guerrillas or civilians, for the proclamation is applicable to
all persons who have committed a crime against persons who were
aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. It is true that Lieutenant
Pioquinto was not presented as a witness in this case, but that fact
alone raises no presumption against the defense, for there is testimony
that the lieutenant was killed by the Japanese.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is revoked,
and, declaring appellants entitled to the benefits of the Amnesty
Proclamation, the Court hereby orders the information filed in this
case dismissed and the defendants Policarpio Ruiz, 2.o Maximo Agni, 2.o, Adriano Velasco alias Pediong, and Florentino Rosario set at liberty, with costs de oficio.

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