SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2000 January 31, 1950

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO DEDUYO, Defendant-Appellant.

Gil R. Carlos for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Jaime de los Angeles for appellee.

PARAS, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the People's Court and convicting the appellant of treason and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with legal accessories, and to pay a fine of P10,000, plus the costs. The amended information charged 15 counts, but the conviction was premised only on counts 1, 5, and 14.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As to the count 1, the evidence for the prosecution shows that during the Japanese occupation the appellant, as member of the military police organization in Sariaya, Tayabas (now Quezon) Province, rendered services to the Japanese army by participating in the arrest, investigation and torture of guerrillas. This count is established by the testimony of Clemente Ballecer and Josefa Vda. de Rodriguez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As to the count 5, it is alleged by the prosecution that on February 9, 1945, the appellant, with Japanese soldiers and some members of the military police organization, arrested in Sariaya Quirico Delica, Manuel Alcala, Jesus Alcala, Antonio Alcala, Jose Jabole and Abelardo Lopez. On the occasion in which this arrest was effected, appellant accused the people in Barrio Pantoc of being guerrillas. Palay and rice were also confiscated. The persons thus arrested were investigated and maltreated in the garrison housed in the convent in Sariaya. The Alcala brothers and Abelardo Lopez, Josefa Rodriguez, and Eligio Fajardo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Under count 14, it is maintained by the prosecution that in June, 1943, the appellant, after apprehending Alfredo Mendoza in a cockpit in Sariaya, delivered the latter to his Japanese soldiers. Alfredo's hands were tied behind his back, a rope was around his neck, and his face was swollen. Appellant asked Alfredo to produce his revolver, and upon insisting that he had none, Alfredo was maltreated. The appellant got from Alfredo's wife the keys with which the appellant opened their wardrobe, and from this he took money and jewelry. Alfredo was thereafter not heard of.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The defense consists of denials, but in view of the fact that the witnesses for the government had no reason to falsely incriminate the appellant, we are fully convinced of his guilt. As a matter of fact, appellant's attorney de oficio concurs in the findings of the People's Court and in appellants conviction. He merely recommends that the appellant be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance under article 13, paragraph 10, in relation to paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, in that, as he was uncultured, he could not have known the import and gravity of his acts specially in view of the circumstance that the leaders of his people then decided to feign collaboration with the enemy. We have to reject this plea, because it is inconsistent with the denials set up by the appellant and with the manner in which his treasonable acts were accomplished.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, the appealed decision, being in accordance with the facts and the law, is hereby affirmed. So ordered, with costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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