[ G.R. No. L-397. November 23, 1948 ] 82 Phil. 130
[ G.R. No. L-397. November 23, 1948 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PILAR BARRERA DE REYES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
Pilar Barrera de Reyes appealed against the lower court’s judgment finding her guilty of treason and sentencing her, in accordance with the provisions of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law and to pay a fine in the amount of P10,000 and the costs. The prosecution accuses her of having caused, by pointing them to Japanese officers and soldiers, the arrest of three Filipino guerrilla suspects, Pelagio Cabutin, Ignacio Mejia and Alejandro Tan, who, after having been apprehended inside the air raid shelter where they were hiding inside the ruins of the Santa Rosa College, Intramuros, Manila, were tortured and then brought to Fort Santiago where they were killed, the treasonous denunciation having been committed on February 15, 1945. Two witnesses, Modesta B. Son and her daughter Lourdes B. Son, testified for the prosecution to show appellant’s responsibility for the arrest, torture and killing of the three victims of Japanese brutality. According to the two witnesses, on February 5, 1945, all the male residents in Intramuros, about 400 of them, were taken by the Japanese and herded in Fort Santiago, while all the females, about 300, and the children were herded inside the ruins of Santa Rosa College. The three victims, members of a guerrilla outfit in Laguna, who went to Instramuros to visit their relatives and observe the activities of the Janpanese, were among the males who were rounded up, tied, tortured and brought to Fort Santiago February 5, 1945. On February 5, 1945, they were able to secure permission from a Japanese lieutenant to go out for the purpose of visiting two girls, Rosing and Magdalena, Cabutin’s nieves, who were among the women herded in the Santa Rosa College compound. (The statement in the government’s brief that the three victims managed to escape is not based on any testimony on record.) Once inside the ruins, Cabutin and campanions hid from the Japanese, dug an air raid shelter, covered it with wood and earth, and on top built a shack for Rosing and Magdalena to stay in. The accused, who was living in another shack with her child and a maid and wherein her husband, a Japanese officer, passed all night from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., used to make rounds to spy on males hiding in the compound, pretending to barter foodstuffs. On the morning of February 15, 1945, she discovered the presence of the three victims and reported the fact to her husband who, in turn, called three Japanese soldiers and all of them, including the accused, went to the hiding place and the three Japanese soldier apprehended the three victims and tortured them. The accused told the Japanese officer to take the three guerrillas and bring them to Fort Santiago. The arrest of the three guerrillas took place in the morning, and in the afternoon of the same day the accused told the witness that the three had already been killed. On the following day, February 16, at 11 o’clock, Arcadio Son, Modesta’s husband, who was hiding in their shack since February 5, was also taken by the Japanese soldier, tortured and brought to Fort Santiago, because the accused happened to hear of his presence in the place on February 15, and denounced him then to her husband, the Japanese officer. Arcadio Son never returned since he was brought to Fort Santiago. From February 5 to 20, there were in Santa Rosa College compound many women married to Japanese, all of them spies who used to go around the shacks to look for men in hiding. These other women peeped in to the shack of Arcadio Son three times looking for men. There is no way of determining with absolute certainty whether Modesta and Lourdes B. Son testified to the truth or not. While the record offers no clue that mother and daughter’s testimonies should be imputed to bastard motives, there are flaws in their declarations that preclude us from accepting them at their face value. We notice several contradictions that have not been explained. But even if they can be explained, there are improbabilities in the testimonies, from accepting which conscience recoils. That Cabutin, Mejia and Tan, after having been confined in Fort Santiago since February 5, were on February 9 given permission by a Japanese lieutenant to go out for the exclusive purpose of visiting Cabutin’s nieces, Rosing and Magdalena, appears to be fantastic. That the three guerrillas were allowed to go out, that they went out without and Japanese guard or escort, and that, upon their failure to return, the Japanese did not right away comb all places including the Santa Rose College for their arrest, are things incompatible with the ways of the Japanese. If the Japanese lieutenant could have believed that to visit his nieces was enough reason to allow Cabutin to go out from Fort Santiago, such reason could not be applied in favor of his two companions who had nothing to do with the girls. If the three guerrillas wanted to hide, they could not have been so dumb to go to and stay at the very spot where Rosing and Magdalena were staying, as it would be the logical spot, to anyone’s mind, that the Japanese would have searched first, because the Japanese lieutenant must have known that to visit the two girls, they must have had to go to their place. If it is true that the accused had been making daily rounds in order to detect males hiding in the Santa Rosa College compound, it is incomprehensible how it took her six days, from February 9 to February 15, to discover the presence of the guerrilla trio and to denounce them to the Japanese officer. According to Modesta and Lourdes, the air raid shelter dug by the trio was situated at a few meters distance from the shack of the accused. Before the three guerrillas had been able to dig the hole, all of them must have been exposed to the full view of the accused and they remained so while they were working in the excavation, to perform which it would have taken days or many hours. The earth and stones taken from the hole must have been piled on the surface. When the three guerrillas undertook the work of placing wooden planks and earth on top of the shelter and then they built the shack for Rosing and Magdalena, they could have also been seen by the accused. There is no pretense that the accused suffered blindness during the hours and days needed by the three guerrillas to complete the whole job. Modesta’s story of the Japanese officer who every night slept with the accused, is surprising. The conduct of the Japanese appears to be that of a civilian employee rather than that of a military officer or, at any rate, of a man enjoying the blessings of undisturbed peace. It is unbelievable that a Japanese officer should leave his garrison for whole nights, and much more at the time when the American army was already in Manila and was showering bombs and cannon shells in Intramuros. Modesta would make us believe that the accused made denunciations to the Japanese officer in a way that she could her them, that the accused was almost ordering the Japanese officer to bring the victims to Fort Santiago, and even bragged that they were already killed. A Filipina in her mind could not have done such things, considering the well-known fact of the overwhelming feeling in our population against the Japanese, and much more on February 15, 1945, when the victorious Americans had already surrounded Intramuros. It would have been suicidal for the accused to have done what Modesta attributes to her because it would have exposed her to reprisal or revenge. Modesta would make us believe also that the presence of her husband, Arcadio San, in the compound was discovered by the accused since February 15 and denounced on the same day to the Japanese officer, but the arrest took place only at 11 o’clock next morning. No Japanese officer could have been so slow as that. On the other hand, Modest’s assertion that she was outside of her shack when she witnessed the arrest of the guerrilla trio on February 15, is belied by Asuncion Dueñas, a witness for the prosecution, who said that when the three victims were caught by the Japanese, Modesta was during the whole time inside her shelter. When after liberation, Modesta and her daughter denounced to the authorities the Japanese arrest in the Santa Rosa College ruins, both mentioned the apprehension of the guerrilla trio, but not the arrest of Arcadio Son. They failed to do so twice, first when they made the denunciation to Froilan Bungue, United States Army soldier, and the second time when they were investigated on March 15, at about 10 a.m., by the American CIC at General Solano Street. Modesta’s explanation was that at that time her mind was perturbed, and that of Lourdes was that she simply forgot about it. That a husband, a father, had in that way been forgotten by his wife and daughter who, nevertheless, were prompt in remembering the names of three acquaintances or friends, is a thing that cannot fail to cast doubt on the mother and daughter’s credibility. As regards Lourdes, there is her positive testimony that on November 16, 1945, she was beaten by her husband because she said on one occasion that the accused was not the same woman who pointed the three men caught by the Japanese at the Santa Rosa College and killed in Fort Santiago, that her husband told her to point the accused as the one, and that if she should tell again that it was not the accused, he would beat her again. This revelation cannot fail to affect her testimony against the accused. The defense has shown that since February 11, 1945, the child of the accused had been ill and that she remained all the time attending to said child until it was killed by a shrapnel on February 18, and that it is not true that the accused had any Japanese sleeping with her or committed the act attributed to her by the witness for the prosecution. A witness for the defense had shown that the witnesses for the prosecution could have confused the accused with other women, with similar features. When Modesta approached Froilan Bungue to denounce the arrests, the accused was not present, and among those arrested by Bungue as a result of the denunciation was one Asuncion Mendoza, while other witnesses testified that among the women spies were two, called by the name of Fely and Perla. The prosecution has the onus probandi in showing the guilt of an accused. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved.” (Section 1 [17], Article III of the Constitution.) The evidence of the prosecution in this case does not show beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the overt act imputed to her. The presumption of innocence in favor of appellant has not been overthrown. With the reversal of the appealed judgment, appellant Pilar Barrera de Reyes is acquitted and, upon promulgating of this decision she will be immediately released. Moran, C.J., Paraás, Feria, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.