THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GABINO R. TUASON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appellant Gabino R. Tuason was convicted by the People’s Court of
the crime of treason on counts 1, 2, 4 and 6, alleged in the amended
information, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P10,000 and the costs.

The appellant is a Filipino citizen. Under counts 1 and 2, it has
been proven that on April 22, 1944, appellant, with two Japanese and
twenty Filipinos, went to the house of Cornelia Cruz in the barrio of
Ugong Norte, Pasig, Rizal, at about 5 o’clock in the morning, and there
they arrested and tied Sotero Historia. On the same occasion, they also
arrested Mario, Faustino, Jose and Angel, all surnamed Fereyra and one
Julian Javier. They later proceeded with.their prisoners to barrio
Rosario, Pasig, Rizal, and went to the house of the spouses Sixto
Santos and Macaria Mendiola. They ordered said spouses to come down and
inquired from them as to the whereabouts of the father and mother of
Macaria Mendiola, suspected by the appellant of being members of the
guerrilla forces. Since the spouses refused to give the desired
information, they were tied and slapped and Sixto Santos was kicked and
taken to a place under a mango tree where the other prisoners were, and
Macaria Mendiola was thrown into a small bonfire thus suffering minor
burns. The assailants took from the house of the spouses some clothes
worth P20, and brought their prisoners to Pasig. Sotero Historia was
never heard from again. Julian Javier and the Fereyras were allowed to
go home that same day. Sixto Santos was released nine days thereafter.
All these facts have been testified to by witnesses Cornelia Cruz
(mother of Sotero Historia), Sixto Santos and Macaria Mendiola.

The arrest of Sotero Historia in his mother’s house was testified
to by his mother alone, Cornelia Cruz, but the spouses Sixto Santos and
Macaria Mendiola saw also Sotero Historia arrested and tied together
with the Fereyras and Julian Javier, under the mango tree
above-mentioned. And said spouses testified to all the incidents that
had happened after that occasion. This is a sufficient compliance with
the two-witness rule.

The defense witnesses, Cirilo Tuason and Felipe Reyes, both treason
detainees, testified that appellant was not among those who arrested
Sotero Historia and Sixto Santos. This denial cannot, of course,
prevail over the positive testimonies of the three witnesses for the
prosecution. The same consideration applies to appellant’s testimony to
the effect that he had no participation in saia arrest because since
1943 till liberation he has always been in the barrio of Calawaan.

Under count no. 4, the facts proven by witnesses Florencia
Santiago, Lucia Santos, Maxima Javier and the victim himself, Celestino
Reyes, are as follows:

In the first week of December, 1944, Celestino Reyes who was
suspected by appellant of being a member of the guerrilla forces, was
driving a carretela in the barrio of Rosario, Pasig, Rizal, going
towards Mariquina. Appellant and his companions stopped the carretela
and forced Celestino Reyes to come down. Appellant hit him in the neck
with the butt of a gun and Reyes fell unconscious on the ground. He was
then taken to a nearby yard where he was tied and tortured by
appellant. A .45 calibre revolver was aimed at his forehead ‘to scare
him, and upon his refusal to admit that he was a member of the
guerrilla forces his torture was resumed. Later he was put back in the carretela
which appellant and his companions also boarded and they all proceeded
to Pasig. Celestino Reyes kicked appellant who was driving the carretela, grabbed from him a .45 calibre revolver, fell from the carretela
and ran away, but he was overtaken and was knocked down. He got up
again and ran away and a shot hit him on the right leg but he succeeded
in making good his escape.

While it is true that witness Maxima Javier does not seem to have
recognized the identity of the victim, yet the arrest and torture of
Celestino Reyes are facts admitted by the defense. It is claimed,
however, by appellant, that only Felipe Sanpedro and Eleno del Rosario
were the authors of such arrest and torture, appellant having had
absolutely no participation therein. But again this denial cannot
prevail over the positive testimonies of the four witnesses for the
prosecution who have no ill motive to falsely impute a serious crime to
defendant-appellant.

As regards count no. 6, the facts proven by witnesses Cornelia Cruz and Icasiana Gimenez are as follows:

In the first week of February, 1945, at about 5 o’clock in the
morning, appellant with some makapilis, arrested Sebastian Raymundo in
the barrio of Bulao, and took him to barrio Rosario, Pasig, Rizal.
Later in the afternoon, Sebastian Raymundo was brought back to barrio
Bulao for the purpose of making him indicate the other members of the
guerrilla forces who were hiding in that barrio. He was not able,
however, to point out any guerrilleros, and for that reason,
he was beaten up by appellant with the butt of a .gun and he fell
unconscious on the ground. Sometime there- after, Sebastian Raymundo
died.

Cornelia Cruz testified that the victim died three days after he was
tortured, while Icasiana Gimenez testified that his death took place in
the same afternoon he was maltreated. However, the fact remains that
Raymundo died from the maltreatment inflicted upon him. Whether he died
on the same day he was maltreated or three days thereafter, is ¦inmate
rial. The testimony of Icasiana Gimenez on that point may be ascribed
to an honest mistake, since Sebastian Raymundo might have seemed dead
when appellant and his companions left him unconscious on the ground in
that afternoon. The witness left barrio Bulao immediately that
afternoon and went to the poblacion, so she could not have known that Raymundo died three days later.

Icasiana Gimenez testified that appellant personally struck
Sebastian Raymundo with the butt of a gun; Cornelia Cruz, upon the
other hand, testified that appellant did nothing though he was present
when Sebastian Raymundo was tortured. Again, this apparent discrepancy
does not necessarily imply falsehood on the part of the witnesses. Two
witnesses admittedly present while a fact is taking place may not
coincide in describing all the details of the occurrence. One may
mention details which the other may not have observed or may not
remember. The apparent conflict, therefore, may be due to differences
in observation or memory.

In the instant case, the two witnesses coincide on a substantial
detail, namely, the presence of the accused during the torture of
Sebastian Raymundo. That, together with the other proofs, is sufficient
to establish appellant’s guilt.

Exhibit 3 was offered as evidence by the defense to prove that
Eleno del Rosario and Guillermo Figueros pleaded guilty to a charge of
homicide committed against Sebastian Raymundo, and that, accordingly,
they were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one
day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal,
to pay an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of the victim and the costs.
It appears, however, that the guilt of Eleno del Rosario and Guillermo
Figueroa is not at all inconsistent with and does not exclude
appellant’s guilt. According to the evidence in the instant case, Eleno
del Rosario and appellant Gabino Tuason acted together and in mutual
cooperation in the killing of Sebastian Raymundo.

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and
the judgment appealed from, being in accordance with the law and the
facts, is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant.

Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.