[ G.R. No. L-1622. December 02, 1948 ] 82 Phil. 193
[ G.R. No. L-1622. December 02, 1948 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN LANASANAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court (Second Division), finding the appellant guilty of treason and sentencing him to relusion perpetua, and its accessory penalties and to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos, plus the costs. Appellant’s conviction was based only on counts V and VI of the information. The first charged the appellant with having enlisted, joined and served in the organization commonly known as Makapili. The second accused the appellant of having led and accompanied a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Makapilis to a raid in Barrio Parian, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Lasuna, resulting in the arrest of all the male inhabitants of the barrio and their confinement in the Japanese garrison in Calamba for three days and two nights without food, in retaliation for the killing of one of appellant’s companions.
We will concede, following appellant’s argument, that count V was not established in accordance with the two-witness rule, since only one witness (Marcial Flores) was specific in testifying that he knew the appellant to be a Makapili because he used to persuade people, in meetings held by him with others in different barrios, to join the Makapili organization. This is, however, sufficient to prove appellant’s adherence to the enemy, considering the purposes for which the organization was created, namely, “to accomplish the fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Philippines in the Pact of Alliance with the Empire of Japan”; “to shed blood and sacrifice the lives of our people in order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence in East Asia”; “to collaborate unreservedly and unstintedly with the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy in the Philippines”, and “to fight the common enemies.” (People vs. Adriano, G. R. No. L-477, June 30, 1947.) [1]
The appellant, with such proof of adherence, has to be found guilty of treason under count VI, because at least two witnesses (Marcial Flores and Tereso Villar) had testified that the appellant played an active role in bringing about the mass arrest and confinement of the people of Barrio Parian, a punitive measure that took place in December, 1944, in reprisal for the killing of a Makapili. The fact that said witnesses were not uniform on the points whether or not there were Japanese soldiers in the raiding party, or whether or not the persons arrested and confined include not only the males but some women and confined included not only the males but some women and children, is not sufficient to entirely discredit their testimony, as the deficiency refers merely to minor details. Neither may the negative testimony of Elpidio Elasigue, an alleged victim of the raid, to the effect that he did not see the appellant among the raiders prevail over the positive testimony of Marcial Flores and Tereso Villar who, moreover, were not shown to have had any improper motive in testifying against the appellant. For obvious reasons, also, appellant’s mere denials and the exculpatory testimony of his wife deserve little or no weight. At any rate, the latter has even strengthened the theory of the prosecution as to appellant’s Makapili membership, when she admitted that the appellant was Sakdal before the war.
Counsel for the appellant contends that, assuming the truth of count VI, no treason was committed because the raid against the people of barrio Parian was motivated by the slaying of a Makapili, and not by a desire to betray one’s country. The contention, however, ignores the fact that the appellant had shown his adherence to the enemy by his Makapili membership and that, by retaliating for the violent death of fellow member, he had defended the Makapili organization and had thereby committed a positive act in the furtherance of its aims and purposes.
Lack of instruction or education cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellant, because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however unlettered or cultured he may be.
The appealed judgment is therefore affirmed, with cost against the appellant. So ordered.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.