Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1950 > January 1950 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1731 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON GUTIERREZ

085 Phil 403:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-1731. January 31, 1950.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTINO FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. 1676. January 31, 1950.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEON GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. 1624. January 31, 1950.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FELIPE REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

Manuel A. Corcodia for Appellants.

Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Francisco Carreon for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; EVIDENCE; TWO-WITNESS RULE, MEANING OF. — The rule is that every act, movement, deed and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as each and every one of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue and each of the two witnesses must testify to the whole of the overt act; or if it is separable, there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


These three cases were among the thirty that were heard by the People’s Court in a mass trial held in Pasig, Rizal, by the agreement of the parties.

The defendants were charged with treason, the first two (Faustino Flores and Leon Gutierrez) on two counts, and the last one (Felipe Reyes) on five counts. Common to the three defendants was the charged contained in count No. 2, relating to defendants’ alleged participation in the "zoning" of the barrio of Tipas, Taguig, Rizal, on December 1, 1944, and it is on this count alone that defendants were found guilty and sentenced to a prison term and fine. Of the other counts, including the charge that they had joined the Makapili organization, defendants were acquitted for lack of proof. The present appeal is, therefore, confined to the second count, which charged each of the appellant as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about December 1, 1944, in the different barrios of the municipality of Taguig, Province of Rizal, Philippines, the herein accused, acting as informer or agent of the Imperial Japanese Forces in the Philippines, for the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid and/or comfort to the enemy, with the aid of a group of armed men and Japanese soldiers who afforded (them) impunity and taking advantage of the darkness of night, did wilfully, feloniously and treasonably guide and accompany a group of armed men and Japanese soldiers in the ’zonification’ of the different barrios in search of guerilla suspects, that, on this occasion, the herein accused, assisted by armed men and Japanese soldiers with the intention of spreading terror around the place and in search of guerrilla suspects, established a perimeter of restricted freedom and mass confinement, arrest, investigation, maltreatment and torture, known in common parlance as ’zona’, during which the accused and his companions arrested about 267 male residents, suspected of being guerrillas, and herded them together in a place which was afterwards surrounded by armed men and Japanese soldiers, and having thus confined the 267 guerrilla suspects and illegally and arbitrarily having deprived them of their freedom, carried out the purpose and plans of the enemy; that, on the same occasion, the accused together with armed men and Japanese soldiers made a house-to-house search in the said barrios and took and turned over to the enemy, for their benefit and for the benefit of the Japanese soldiers for whom they were working and without the consent of the owners thereof, money, jewelry, palay, corn, canned goods, hogs and chickens, and, subsequently, the accused and his companions loaded in Japanese trucks and took to Pasig, Rizal, the 267 guerrilla suspects, all of whom have not returned since then."cralaw virtua1aw library

Anent the above charge, the People’s Court found that early in the morning of December 1, 1944, a mixed force of Japanese soldiers and Filipinos, the latter armed with rifles and revolvers and each wearing a white band across his chest, rounded up the male residents of the different sitios of the barrio of Tipas, herded them together at the town plaza and then made them pass single file in front of a house located at one corner of the plaza. At the window of this house were several hooded persons known in those days as "magic eyes," who, as the men passed before them, indicated by a nod the ones suspected of being guerrillas. These were then led to the Aglipayan church where they were subjected to tortures to make them admit their guerrilla affiliation and squeal on the other guerrilla suspects. Some of them were even hanged from trees and the rafters of nearby houses. At about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of that day, the suspects were loaded in trucks and taken to Fort Santiago in Manila many of them never to return.

The above facts are established by more than the required number of witnesses and are not disputed. The only question of fact presented in the appeal is the participation of the appellants in the "zoning" above described.

As regards the participation of appellant Faustino Flores (G. R. No. L-1731), two witnesses (Antonia Rodriguez and Felisa Rodriguez) testified that said appellant was one of the armed Makapilis they saw in the "zoning" of barrio Tipas. But their testimony does not disclose that they were referring to the same act, place or moment of time, so that it cannot be said that one corroborated the other. Antonia declared that appellant was one of those who went up her house, while Felisa, on her part, stated that she approached appellant on the day of the "zoning" to plead for one Gonzalo Mapalid. But neither statement was corroborated. The result is that there are no two witnesses to the same overt act.

As to the participation of Leon Gutierrez (G. R. No. L-1676) the witness Julita Gregorio testified that she saw the said appellant between 6 and 7 o’clock in the morning of December 1, 1944, arresting and driving the male residents towards Tipas and that he was among those who went to her store that morning and took her husband along. No one, however, corroborated this testimony. Another witness, Leonila Mañosca, testified to having seen appellant and his companions at about 8 o’clock that morning bearing arms and wearing white bands and in the act of searching the houses. But again the testimony finds no corroboration. Various other witnesses who also claimed to have seen appellant that day, failed to disclose that they were testifying to the same overt act.

The same defect is to be noted in the testimony of the witnesses against the appellant Felipe Reyes (G. R. No. L-1624). Maria Umali Ramos testified that this appellant was one of those who took her husband from their house. But no one corroborated her on this point. Neither is there corroboration for the testimony of Margarita Bunyi to the effect that she saw appellant at 11 o’clock in the morning of December 1, 1944, at the store of one Teria. The third witness, Rafael Sanga, merely gave the information that he saw appellant bearing arms on the day of the zoning, but his testimony corroborates neither that of Maria Umali Ramos nor that of Margarita Bunyi. In view of the foregoing, we find merit in the contention of counsel for appellants that their conviction was a violation of the two-witness rule. The Solicitor General contends, in effect, that the zoning of Tipas the whole day of December 1, 1944, constitutes but one treasonous act and since at least two witnesses saw each of the appellants on that occasion, the legal requirement as to the concurrence of two witnesses on the same overt act has been satisfied. To this we can not agree. The rule is that "every act, movement, deed and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses" (Cramer v. U. S., 65 Sup. Ct., 918), and in accord with that rule, we have ourselves held that "the two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every one of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue." (People v. Abad, 44 Off. Gaz., 41901.) 1 We have also adopted the rule that "each of the two witnesses must testify to the whole of the overt act; or if it is separable, there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act." (People v. Adriano, 44 Off. Gaz., 4300.) 2

The rule as thus formulated may be severely restrictive. But as an eminent author on evidence aptly observes, "The opportunity of detecting the falsity of the testimony, by sequestering the two witnesses and exposing their variance in details, is wholly destroyed by permitting them to speak to different acts."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction in each of these three cases is revoked and the appellants acquitted, with costs de oficio.

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

Endnotes:



1. 78 Phil., 766.

2. 78 Phil., 561




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2015 January 6, 1950 - LUISA CRUZ VDA. DE JOSE ET AL. v. EUGENIA DE LA PAZ

    085 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-2569 January 13, 1950 - GOTAMCO LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    085 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. L-2700 January 13, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BLANCO

    085 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. L-3033 January 13, 1950 - PHIL. MANUFACTURING CO. v. NAT’L. LABOR UNION, ET AL

    085 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-858 January 18, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GREGORIO HONTAÑOSAS

    085 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L 1477 January 18, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO GUILLEN

    085 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-2247 January 23, 1950 - FLORENTINO UY BOCO v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    085 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-2248 January 23, 1950 - VICENTE ROSAL PARDO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    085 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. L-2347 January 23, 1950 - ANSELMO BULASAG ET AL. v. ALIPIO RAMOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-711 January 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO PAÑGANIBAN

    085 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-1986 January 28, 1950 - PLACIDA CLEMENTE DE BELARMINO, ET AL v. PEDRO DE MESA

    085 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-2003 January 28, 1950 - FILEMON ARCIGA v. ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET AL

    085 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-2095 January 28, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO CLAMANIA ET AL.

    085 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2540 January 28, 1950 - BENIGNO S. VIRAY v. AMNESTY COM. OF THE AFP

    085 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2548 January 28, 1950 - DEE C. CHUAN & SONS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    085 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-2811 January 28, 1950 - PRESCILA S. EBOÑA, ET AL v. MUNICIPALITY OF DAET

    085 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-3282 January 28, 1950 - VICTORINA A. DE GAERLAN, ET AL v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. L-1559 January 31, 1950 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. TAN CHAUCO

    085 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. L-1577 January 31, 1950 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. EUSTAQUIO FULE

    085 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-1655 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-1731 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON GUTIERREZ

    085 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-2000 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DEDUYO

    085 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-2065 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION JARDINICO

    085 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-2156 January 31, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO ANTONIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-2196 January 31, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO CAPUA

    085 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. L-2235 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. URBANO MARASIGAN

    085 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2216 January 31, 1950 - DEE C. CHAN & SONS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

    085 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-2237 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO MENOR

    085 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-2321 January 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIA NUÑEZ

    085 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-2592 January 31, 1950 - MUN. OF DINGRAS v. CORNELIO BONOAN, ET AL.

    085 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. L-2851 January 31, 1950 - ANGELA GOYENA DE QUIZON v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    085 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-2944 January 31, 1950 - JULIA MANUELA LICHAUCO, ET AL v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, ET AL

    085 Phil 466