ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-406 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCIA

    082 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-1449 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DOSAL, ET AL.

    082 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-1656 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN VILO

    082 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. L-1838 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXEQUIEL LACANLALE

    082 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. L-1874 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO MEJIAS

    082 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. L-2327 January 11, 1949 - CANUTO F. PIMENTEL v. PEDRO FESTEJO

    082 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-1607 January 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO FIGUIEROA

    082 Phil 559

  • G.R. Nos. L-1846-48 January 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO REYES, ET AL.

    082 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-1591 January 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO REFUERZO

    082 Phil 576

  • In re VICENTE SOTTO, for contempt of court : January 21, 1949 - 082 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-365 January 21, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RACAZA

    082 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-1278 January 21, 1949 - LORETO BARRIOQUINTO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL

    082 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-1369 January 21, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL VALENCIA

    082 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-1187 January 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFRACIO LANSANG

    082 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-1288 January 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO PINEDA

    082 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-1561 January 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CADA

    082 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. L-2456 January 25, 1949 - NICOLAS B. POTOT v. JUAN L. BAGANO, ET AL.

    082 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-986 January 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ALCOVER

    082 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-1620 January 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO ARANGUREN, ET AL.

    082 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-300 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CASTRO

    082 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-1481 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ABENDAN, ET AL.

    082 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-1547 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO BATE

    082 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-1653 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TUMANDAO

    082 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-1677 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO HUMARANG

    082 Phil 737

  • G.R. Nos. L-1642-44 January 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA, ET AL.

    082 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. L-2186 January 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN BULATAO

    082 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. L-2417 January 29, 1949 - DALMACIO CELINO v. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA

    082 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-1805 January 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ALBANO

    082 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-2007 January 31, 1949 - WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN v. ALFREDO DE LEON, ET AL.

    082 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. L-2676 January 31, 1949 - LI KIM THO v. GO SIU KAO, ET AL.

    082 Phil 776

  • R-CA-No. 9871 January 31, 1949 - ANTONIO AUSTRIA v. JOSE E. LAUREL, ET AL.

    082 Phil 780

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-406   January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCIA<br /><br />082 Phil 496

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-406. January 7, 1949.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVENIDO GARCIA (alias DOMINGO GARCIA) defendant-appellant.

    Constancio M. Leuterio for Appellant.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Jose B. L. Reyes and Solicitor Jess Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; EVIDENCE; ENLISTMENT AS AND SERVICE TO THE GUERILLA INSUFFICIENT AS A DEFENSE. — The evidence presented by appellant as to his guerrilla enlistment and alleged services rendered to the guerrilla would not exempt him from criminal responsibility for the arrests he made, which were overt acts of aid and comfort he rendered to the Japanese and, because voluntarily rendered, could have been done only in pursuance of his adherence to the enemy.

    2. ID.; ID.; ACCUSED’S INFLUENCE AND POWER TO THE ENEMY IN SECURING THE RELEASE OF SEVERAL PERSONS, IS NOT A DEFENSE. — By his own testimony and the testimony of some of his witnesses, appellant has shown that he was able to secure the release of several persons who had been confined by the Japanese. The merits he gained in the eyes of the persons whose release he secured cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility for the three arrests proved by the prosecution. Perhaps, the fact that he had so much influence or power with the Japanese that he was able to secure the release of several persons, should rather be taken against appellant as, instead of using said influence and power to impede the arrests of C. E., M. M. and D. T., he took active part with three Japanese soldiers in their arrests.


    D E C I S I O N


    PERFECTO, J.:


    At about 4 o’clock in the afternoon of September 21, 1944, three Japanese soldiers and appellant, all armed, went to the house of Carlos Escudero, a guerrilla, at 930 Raon, Manila, and arrested him. After ransacking the house, the quartet, after tying Escudero, took him with them. Escudero had never returned. These facts have been proved by the testimonies of his wife Leonora Escudero, his mother Filomena Sanchez, and Aurelia Escudero.

    On the morning of September 22, 1944, while Danilo Tagle was near the pagoda of Ocampo at a foot of the Raon bridge, Manila, he was apprehended by appellant and three armed Japanese soldiers. Appellant tied his hands at his back and brought him to the warehouse in front of Ocampo’s pagoda, and appellant’s reason for making the arrest was that Tagle tried to shoot the Japanese sentry at the bridge. Tagle was released after twenty six days of confinement. His testimony as to his arrest was corroborated by Rodolfo Lopez. On October 29, 1944, at about 9:30 o’clock in the morning, three Japanese and appellant, carrying handcuffs and revolvers, went to 1427 Abreu, Manila, and arrested Mario Martinez, a guerrilla, from whose possession a revolver hidden in the house was taken by the Japanese who, by the way, mistook him for an American, because Martinez was of light complexion and had reddish hair. At the time Martinez was arrested, his brother Fernando Martinez arrived, to pay a visit to his parents who were living there. He was also arrested and the two brothers, with tied hands, were taken away and confined in several places. Fernando was released about three days later, but Mario was never seen again by his family. These facts have been proved by the testimonies of Fernando Martinez and Maria Bernardo, wife of Mario.

    Several other witnesses for the prosecution, Claudia Torres de Tsugawa, Fernando P. Castelo, Jose M. Lichauco, Tirzo Diaz, Estrella Alfon Rivera and B. L. Rivera testified that at about the time the above arrests had taken place, appellant was a spy in the service of the Japanese military police, and he himself said so expressly to some of said witnesses and even invited Diaz and Rivera to become Japanese spies.

    Appellant denied having taken part in any of the three arrests mentioned by the witnesses for the prosecution.

    According to him, he went to the house of Carlos Escudero because he was called by his relatives to intervene in his behalf, so that he might not be arrested by the Japanese but, unfortunately, he came late; and the mother and wife of Escudero got angry at him because he was not able to secure the release of Escudero when days after the arrest he was requested by them to work for said release.

    As regards Danilo Tagle, he said that he was only called by the Japanese after the arrest had been effected, merely to identify Tagle. Although not acquainted with him personally and having learned that Tagle was working in the Selecta Ice Cream Factory, he vouchsafed for him, telling the Japanese that Tagle was a good person.

    As regards the arrest of Mario Martinez, appellant denied any knowledge.

    There is no question that appellant was in the service of the Japanese in 1944. He himself has testified about the fact, although he says that he was compelled to do so after he was tortured by the Japanese and compelled to enter their service, as he in fact was a guerrilla, and that, while serving the Japanese, he gave money contributions as well as information about the Japanese, to the guerrillas.

    Appellant alleges that, for having been outspoken in his criticism of the government under the Japanese regime, he was arrested and tortured by the Japanese in Lipa, his hometown, for which reason he transferred to Manila, where he was again arrested, while carrying a revolver, and tortured by the Japanese, who later compelled him to enter their service. His story, including the allegation that in Manila, before his arrest by the Japanese, he had license to carry revolver as a merchant, does not seem credible. But even if we should accept it at its face value, it does not detract an iota from the truth of the three arrests as narrated by the witnesses for the prosecution, who had no motive to falsely testify against Appellant.

    The only witness for the prosecution alleged by appellant to have had a grudge against him, is Estrella Alfon Rivera. According to appellant, said witness bought rice and, lacking money to pay, requested appellant to guarantee in her behalf that the price will be paid to the vendor at an agreed time, but because said witness failed to make the payment, appellant took the rice from her and sold it to another. Aside from the improbability of this story, it has not been corroborated by appellant’s wife, who in turn alleged that Estrella Alfon Rivera was angry when he collected from her a debt for a dress ordered by said witness from Isabel Formilleza. There is no reason to believe that Estrella Alfon Rivera had not told the truth, besides the fact that seven other witnesses are the ones who testified about the arrests undertaken by appellant in the company of three armed Japanese soldiers.

    The evidence presented by appellant as to his guerrilla enlistment and alleged services rendered to the guerrilla would not exempt him from criminal responsibility for the arrests he made, which were overt acts of aid and comfort he rendered to the Japanese and, because voluntarily rendered, could have been done only in pursuance of his adherence to the enemy.

    By his own testimony and the testimony of some of his witnesses, appellant has shown that he was able to secure the release of several persons who had been confined by the Japanese. The merits he gained in the eyes of the persons whose release he secured cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility for the three arrests proved by the prosecution. Perhaps, the fact that he had so much influence or power with the Japanese that he was able to secure the release of several persons, should rather be taken against appellant as, instead of using said influence and power to impede the arrests of Carlos Escudero, Mario Martinez and Danilo Tagle, he took active part with three Japanese soldiers in their arrests.

    The facts proved constitute the crime of treason as punished by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code and the appealed judgment, sentencing appellant to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law and to pay a fine of P10,000 and the costs, being in accordance with law, is affirmed.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon and Tuason, JJ., concur.

    Moran, C.J., I certify that Mr. Justice Briones voted for the affirmance of judgment in this case.

    G.R. No. L-406   January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCIA<br /><br />082 Phil 496


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED