Document 1
Document 1
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2958 March 16, 1951
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Assistant Solicitor General
Guillermo E. Torres for appellee.
TUASON, J.:
Patricio Rosas, the appellant at bar, was prosecuted for treason upon eight counts but
was found guilty on Counts 1, 3 and 5 only, for which he was sentenced to life
imprisonment, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay a fine of P10,000 and
costs. These three counts may still be reduced to one. Counts 1 and 3 are general
allegations of the same overt acts averred in count 5, except as to the charge of looting
and arson, which is laid in count 3 but not in count 5. Counts 1 and 3 charged that the
appellant was an agent informer for the Japanese and Makapili and, as such informer
and Makapili, accompanied Japanese troops and participated in raids, patrols, arrest
and apprehensions, looting and arson. Of the same tenor, except as to one point, noted
above, and more specific is count 5 which reads as follows:
On or about December 17, 1944, in the municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna,
the herein accused, with the help of a group of armed Japanese soldiers Makapilis, who
accompanying him, afforded him impunity, actually took part in the apprehension and
arrests of Felipe Rivera, Francisco Lalongisip, Agapito Lalongisip, Agapito Areda,
Placido Flores, Ruperto Dimasapit and Facundo Imperial, persons suspected of being
guerrillas, and who on the strength of said suspicion, were taken to the Japanese
garrison of the said locality and therein confined, tortured and then killed.
Two witnesses, Dionisia Igamin and Maria Empalmado, testified on this count, the rest
of the prosecution witnesses’ testimony having reference to counts 1 and 3.
Dionisia Igamin and Maria Empalmado testified that on December 17, 1944, the
appellant, with Proceso Delgado, Ambrosio Delgado, other Filipinos and Japanese
troops, arrested Facundo Imperial, Felipe Rivera, Agapito Lalongisip, Francisco
Lalongisip, Agapito Areda, Placido Flores, Ruperto Dimasapit, Dionisia Igamin’s
husband, Silvino Baldolin, for being guerrillas, and bound their hands or arms herded
them in front of one Jose Mapulong’s house whence they were marched to town; that
before leaving the barrio, the members of the raiding party, one of them Rosas, set fire
to several houses belonging to the prisoners; and that after December 17 those persons
had never been seen or heard of. They also declared that the appellant and his Filipino
and Japanese companions were armed with pistols or rifles.
The defendant was the lone witness on his behalf. He denied affiliation with the Makapili
or participation in the raids, arrest and arson mentioned by the witnesses for the
prosecution. He admitted having witnessed those events but claimed that he was a
mere bystander, being himself, he said, under the custody of the Japanese. He stated
that prior to December, 1944, he had been arrested by the Japanese soldiers on
suspicion of being a guerrilla, and that on the day in question, December 17, 1944, he
was taken by his captors to the electric plant of find out the cause of the plant’s
unsatisfactory service and to warn its owners that they would be held accountable if the
service was not improved. It was on their way from the electric plant, he said, that he
saw the arrests, etc. in Prensa.
The court branded this testimony as childish and ridiculous and refused to give it any
credence. This our opinion also.
The evidence on the charge that the appellant was a Makapili has not been proved by
the requisite two-witnesses rule. The witnesses have corroborated each other on the
material points of this feature of the accusation. The trial judge himself states that the
evidence presented to show that the defendant joined and enlisted in the Makapili
organization “falls short, strictly speaking, of the necessary legal requirement.”
Nevertheless, the testimony is valid and sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy.
Taken by and large, the trial court’s findings and judgment are in accordance with law
and the evidence, and the sentence is affirmed with costs.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Jugo, JJ.,
concur.