Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > March 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2958 March 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO ROSAS

088 Phil 355:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-2958. March 16, 1951.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PATRICIO ROSAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Teofilo Mendoza, for Appellant.

Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TREASON EVIDENCE; TWO-WITNESS RULE; PROOF OF ADHERENCE TO ENEMY. — The evidence on the charge that the appellant was a Makapili has not been proved by the requisite two-witness rule. The witnesses have not 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." Held: The testimony is nevertheless valid and sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy.


D E C I S I O N


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 and informer for the Japanese and a Makapili and, as such informer and Makapili, accompanied Japanese troops and participated in raids, patrols, arrests 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:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 and Makapilis, who accompanying him, afforded him impunity, actually took part in the apprehensions 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, and Dionisia Igamin’s husband, Silvino Baldolin, for being guerrillas, and bound their hands or arms and 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, arrests 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 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 to 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 is our opinion also.

The evidence on the charge that the appellant was a Makapili has not been proved by the requisite two-witness rule. The witnesses have not 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.




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






March-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3362 March 1, 1951 - ISABEL HERREROS VDA. DE GIL v. PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO

    088 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-2316 March 5, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO BEATO

    088 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-3097 March 5, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO BERSAMIN, ET AL.

    088 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4069 March 5, 1951 - RODOBALDO GANDICELA v. DEOGRACIAS LUTERO

    088 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. 4108 March 5, 1951 - MELENCIO ANDRES v. EL DIRECTOR DE PRISIONES

    088 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-3440 March 6, 1951 - ANATOLIO HENSON v. J. K. PICKERING & CO., LTD.

    088 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-3410 March 7, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON DE VILLA

    088 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-3244 March 8, 1951 - VALERIANA GUANTIA, ET AL. v. ELENA TATOY, ET AL.

    088 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. L-3031 March 15, 1951 - AMANDA MADAMBA VDA. DE ADIARTE v. EMILIANA TUMANENG

    088 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. L-3830 March 15, 1951 - URBAN ESTATES, INC. v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-2958 March 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO ROSAS

    088 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-3399 March 16, 1951 - FELIPE AGUASIN v. ANANIAS VELASQUEZ, ET AL.

    088 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2543 March 19, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGONDACAN BURANSING

    088 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-3008 March 19, 1951 - FEDERICO SORIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-3477 March 19, 1951 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOSE R. JACINTO

    088 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 19, 1951 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SERGIO M. SILO

    088 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. L-3629 March 19, 1951 - ELISEO SILVA v. BELEN CABRERA

    088 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3781 March 19, 1951 - TOPANDAS VERHOMAL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    088 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. L-4150 March 20, 1951 - MANILA TERMINAL RELIEF AND MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION v. MANILA TERMINAL CO., INC., ET AL.

    088 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-4313 March 20, 1951 - PEDRO P. VILLA v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    088 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-1621 March 29, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUCOY

    088 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. L-3563 March 29, 1951 - ABLAZA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. FELICIANO OCAMPO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 29, 1951 - ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    088 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-2059 March 30, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JESUS ASTROLOGO

    088 Phil 423