[ G.R. No. L-1591. January 20, 1949 ] 82 Phil. 576
[ G.R. No. L-1591. January 20, 1949 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CONRADO COBALIDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [G.R. NO. L-1593] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO REFUERZO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
Gregorio Refuerzo and Conrado Cobalida were prosecuted for treason under separate informations in the People’s Court. As the charges against them were identical and the evidence the same, the two cases were tried jointly, but a separate decision was handed down in each case. We will dispose of the two cases in one decision.
The charges against the two accused may be condensed under three headings: (1) That they were members of a Japanese military organization called “Jutai” and accompanied Japanese troops and Filipino constabulary patrols for the purpose of confiscating foodstuffs and apprehending guerrillas and their sympathizers; (2) that, in company with other members of “Jutai”, they “unlawfully and treasonably hacked one Pelagio Arana to death” for the reason that the victim was a USAFFE and a guerrilla; and (3) that they came to the house of Ignacio Macantan for his guerrilla activities and tortured Macantan and his wife for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of Macantan’s brother Cirilo who was a guerrilla.
There is a fourth charge against Refuerzo alone, to the effect that he spread pro-Japanese propaganda and made pro-Japanese statements urging the Filipinos to cooperate with the Japanese. This charge was abandoned.
One of the charges in count 1 was touched only casually; the other not at all. No evidence was presented on alleged arrests of guerrillas or guerrilla suspects and the evidence on defendants’ alleged joining a Japanese armed force is very deficient. The statements of the witnesses do not give the dates or the occasions when, as the witnesses said, the defendants performed sentry duties, commandeered foodstuffs for the Japanese, or committed other acts as alleged members of “Jutai”. Bearing guns, which it is said they did, was not in and by itself sufficient proof of membership in that or any other military or semi-military body. There is not even any evidence of the creation of such organization or of its purpose, other than the sweeping conclusion of the witnesses. As an overt act of treason, this charge can not therefore be said to have been established in accordance with the two-witness requirement.
On count 2 Ignacio Macantan, Marcelo Piko and Benito Arana testified. The first of these witnesses declared in substance that on May 25, 1943, at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, in barrio San Diego, municipality of Burauen, Province of Leyte, they saw Gregorio Refuerzo and Conrado Cobalida drinking tuba with other Filipinos and Japanese in Gregorio Refuerzo’s house, armed with rifles. The town was deserted, the people having fled to and were staying in the mountains. After the Japanese had left, Pelagio Arana passed by and Gregorio Refuerzo, Conrado Cobalida and four other Filipinos whistled to him, but Arana paid no attention and continued on his way. Conrado Cobalida fired into the air and forthwith pursued him. On catching up with Arana, Conrado seized him by the hands, Feling Pedere stabbed him in the stomach, and Gregorio Refuerzo struck him in the head with a bolo. Arana upon being wounded, crumpled and fell forward. The wounds in the abdomen and in the head were big, the scalp having nearly been chopped off. Arana was an ex-USAFFE and a guerrilla.
This testimony of Ignacio Macantan was corroborated by Marcelo Piko with, some variations as to details.
Benito Arana, brother of the deceased, testified that in May, 1943 he and his brother lived in barrio Bunauan, municipality of Burauen, Leyte; that his brother, on May 25, went to barrio San Diego to look for food; that as Pelagio did not return he looked for him on the 28th; that he met Ignacio Macantan in their evacuation place and Macantan told him that his brother had been killed by Gregorio Refuerzo and companions; that he went to the place indicated by Macantan and found his brother’s dead body on one side of the road with many wounds, one of which was in the head; that as the foul odor was unbearable, he did not touch the cadaver but came back much later to recover the bones. The place was about ten kilometers from his home.
We are conscious of Macantan’s and Piko’s strong tendency to exaggerate and distort the truth born of an personal animosity and urge for revenge against the accused. Thus warned, we have examined the evidence with due caution. Still our opinion is that Pelagio Arana was killed by the appellants and four others in the manner related.
Benito Arana has not been shown to have any cause to perjure himself in a serious crime against the defendants and his testimony is impressed with the ring of veracity. Although Benito’s testimony, so far as his personal knowledge went, proved only Pelagio’s death through violence, yet the information he got from Macantan that the accused and their companions had slain the deceased, was free from any contamination of bias. The information has the appearance of spontaniety and was given soon after the commission of the crime. There was then no thought of commencing prosecution against the accused; and it was over a year before Macantan had any ill-will toward the defendants. It was in July, 1944, that Macantan was tortured by the Constabulary with the aid or at the instance of the defendants.
This is not saying that Macantan’s and Piko’s testimony on the killing has to be rejected. This testimony has to be judged largely on the witnesses’ manner and demeanor on the stand which the trial judges alone were in the position to observe, and on the basis of which they made their finding. With these considerations in mind, we are not disposed to disagree with the trial court on a matter purely of credibility. There is no inherent improbability in the evidence on the murder, nor do we find any circumstance of weight which would tend to disprove it. The witnesses’ false or exaggerated statements on other matters should not preclude the acceptance of such of their evidence as is relieved from any sign of falsehood. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus deals only with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law. (35 C. J. S., footnote, 736.) The rule is not of universal application. (Id., footnote).
However, we are not satisfied that the killing was of political nature, motivated by Arana’s being a supposed ex-USAFFE or a guerrilla. As a matter of fact, Macantan’s and Piko’s testimony that Arana was actively hostile to the Japanese was not corroborated by the latter’s brother. It looks more as though the defendants and their companions committed the deed in a spirit of lawlessness and fiendish deviltry under the influence of liquor, or were angered by Arana’s refusal to halt when he was signalled to stop. It was wartime. Respect for life and property was at its lowest ebb brought on by a reign of terror and impairment of the rmoral fiber.
On count 3 Ignacio Macantan testified substantially as follows: On or about July 8, 1944 he was at his home in San Diego, Burauen, with his wife and five children. At about 9 o’clock a. m. the two accused with Feling Pedere, Santiago Pedere and Simeon Refuerzo arrived. The two Pederes, Simeon Refuerzo and Gregorio Refuerzo came up to the house with two Constabulary men and asked him for his brother Cirilo. He answered that since the outbreak of war he had not seen his brother, upon which he was told he was lying and that he did not want to work on the landing field. He was pushed violently and as he was very near the door, he fell to the ground. After he fell Feling Pedrre seized him and tied his hands with, a rope which Pedere fetched from a neighboring house. From his home, he was marched off to the barracks by Emillara, Cristeto Rellador, Luis Guiwan and Simeon Refuerzo. Avila and Emillara were Constabulary soldiers. In the barracks he was hung in midair and was subjected to other forms of cruelty. Those who tortured him in the barracks were Constabulary soldiers. The maltreatment continued for four days and four nights. On the last day, he was handed documents to sign. He signed them but did not know their contents. Thereafter he was released and he found his wife sick and weak in her parents’ home; she had had an abortion. He was also told that his carabao had been taken by Gregorio Refuerzo.
On cross-examination, Macantan said that he signed Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4; that he was tortured not only because his brother was a guerrilla but also because of a carabao; that in the Constabulary barracks they told him that he had slaughtered Simeon Refuerzo’s carabao and he denied the charge; that he signed the above documents because they told him that the carabao was already in their hands. He admitted that on July 8, 1944, he slaughtered a carabao and that he was brought to the Constabulary headquarters in connection with that carabao.
From Macantan’s testimony it is manifest that he was tortured not by the accused but by members of the Constabulary, and not for refusing to tell the whereabouts of his brother but because he was accused of stealing and butchering a carabao of Simeon Refuerzo, son of Gregorio Refuerzo. The signing of the exhibits above mentioned by the witness at the instance of his torturers reveal the cause of his torture to be theft and not his refusal to disclose his brother’s whereabouts or his being suspected as a guerrilla. The carabao and other livestock which he said were carried away by the accused or which he was forced to part with, were in exchange for the stolen cattle. As to Macantan’s wife, it is also apparent that the latter was not deliberately maltreated but was pushed away when she interfered with the apprehension and punishment of her husband. That she had an abortion seems to have been due not only to this pushing but perhaps also to the anguish she must have endured over her husband’s fate during his confinement in the Constabulary quarters.
In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of murder, unconnected with treasonable intent, for the slaying of Pelagio Arana alleged in count 2. For this offense, intoxication is to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. There is positive evidence, supplied by the prosecution, that the defendants had been drinking.
The appealed judgment is modified so as to reduce the sentence to an indeterminate term of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000, and each to pay one-half of the costs.
Moran, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.
Mr. Justice Ozaeta voted in accordance with this decision.—Moran, C.J.