Garcia, Zacarias E.

3-A BS Criminology
LAW 4 (Assignment 1)

CASE SUMMARIZE:

1. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

VS.ANTONIO RACAZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-365, January 21, 1949 ]82 Phil. 623

Facts:

Racaza was found guilty on fourteen counts of treason. The trial court found
the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, superior strength,
treachery and employment of means for adding ignominy to the natural
effects of the crime.

The trial court found the defendant guilty of all the counts and sentenced
him to death and to pay a fine of P20,000 and costs, It said that "the
prosecution substantiated the overt acts specified in counts Nos.
2,3,4,5,6,7,9,11,12, and 13 by two competent witnesses, and the through the
confession of the defendant in open Court."

According to defense counsel the purpose of the defendant's testimony was

not to deny his guilt for the crime of treason; it was, he added, to "clarify
certain points which he (accused) denied when he was informed again of the
contents of the information filed against him."

After having been sworn the defendant again said that some of the charges
filed against him were not true; that in some of those cases there were other
persons responsible for the commission of the crime, 9, he said who were
tortured because of their refusal to give information, be taken to Isisaki and
Muraki, after which they were marched off to Lensa by Japanese soldiers.
There were about 20 prisoners, he said. Upon arriving at Lensa they were
shot by Muraki and Isisaka in the presence of Captain Suriyama. He
admitted having gone with these people and seen Isisaka and Muraka shoot
the prisoners with luggers. He said about 700 civilians were herded on that
particular date and that it was among these 700 that 20 were executed.
 Issue:

Is the finding of the trial court proper as regards the aggravating

circumstances?

Decision:

No. Evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery are, by

their nature, inherent in the offense of treason and may not be taken to
aggravate the penalty. Adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the
enemy is a long, continued process requiring fixed, reflective and persistent
determination and planning. Treachery is merged in superior strength. To
overcome the opposition and wipe out resistance movements, the use of a
large force and equipment was necessary. The enemy to whom the accused
adhered was itself the personification of brute, superior force, and it was this
superior force which enabled him to overrun the country and for a time
subdue its inhabitants by his brutal rule.

2. .People of the Philippines V.S. Francisco M. Abad “Alias Paquito”

(G.R. No. L-430,July 30 1947) 78 Phil .766

SUMMARY

FACTS:
On December 24, 1943, in the municipality and province aforesaid,
Francisco Abad (alias Paquito) serving as an informer and spy of the
Japanese Army, he join participate in a raid conducted by about fifteen
Japanese soldiers of the Military Police at the house of Magno Ibarra,
charging him of possession of a revolver which had been previously
surrendered by Magno Ibarra to the Japanese that Magno Ibarra still had the
revolver, the latter was confined in the Japanese garrison.
March 11, 1944, in the same municipality and province aforesaid, the said
Francisco Abad (alias Paquito), willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
treasonably, for more than two months, of one Mr. Francisco, whose first
name is still unknown, for having remarked that the Americans would soon
return many places in the Philippines had already been retaken.
September 28, 1944, in the municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, the
herein accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
 treasonably force, coerce, and compel Osias Salvador and his two brothers
Epifanio Salvador and Liberto Salvador to go, as they did to go to the
Japanese garrison, at the instance of the herein accused in his presence, were
tortured as guerrilla suspects, and although Epifanio and Liberto Salvador
managed later to escape from imprisonment, the said Osias Salvador was
unable to do so and died from the tortures and injuries inflicted upon him.
November 12, 1944 and on the occasion of a stage show held in the said
municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, the herein accused, taking
advantage of his connection and influence as informer and spy of the
Japanese Army, did then and there unlawfully, willfully and feloniously
hand over one Francisco Donato to the Japanese soldiers who slapped and
kicked the said Francisco Donato, for an incident in which the accused was
entirely to blame in that the said accused annoyed Flora Esteban, wife of
Francisco Donato, by throwing sugar cane butts at her.

The lower court found the accused guilty on the first three counts.
Francisco Abad was found guilty with 3 counts of treason by giving aid and
comfort to the empire of japan and the japanese Imperial Forces.
In the first count the prosecution presented as witnesses Magno Ibarra and his
wife l,Isabel.Isabel testified that francisco,accompanied by his brother and
japanese soldiers, went to their house and demandad Magno’s surrender of a
revolver. At the time, Magno was not at the house. Moreover, Magno testified
that Francisco demanded him to produce the revolver while at the garrison.
In his appeal, Francisco raised that the lower court erred in finding him guilty
on the first count because there was only a single witness, respectively, to the
overt acts of treason alleged. Magno could not corroborate Isabel’s statement as
to francisco’s coming to their house because Magno was not there at the time.
Also, Isabel could not corroborate Magno’s statement that Francisco demanded
the former to produce the revolver at the garrison because she was not there at
the time.
The Solicitor General advances the theory that where the overt act is simple,
continuous, and composite, made up of, or proved by several circumstances, and
passing through stages, it is not necessary that there should be two witnesses to
each circumstance at each stage.
The lower court erred consequently in not pronouncing that the first count of
the information was not proven.
Whether accused caused the arrest and incarceration of Fausto Francisco, as
alleged in the second count of the information, is the next question raised in
 appellant's brief.
In the afternoon of March 10, 1944, while conversing with a group of about
ten persons, Francisco, who had just arrived from Manila, stated that the
Americans were coming nearer to the Philippines and, on noticing a
Japanese plane flying over them, added that in the very near future they will
see American planes flying over the Philippines. The accused was among
those present in the group. Jose Tamurrada and Adriano Reyes were also
among them
Among the arguments in appellant's brief relating to the second count in
question, the one in which appellant alleges that no one has ever heard that,
after the afternoon statements of Fausto Francisco, appellant went to the
Japanese garrison and informed the Japanese soldiers thereof, appears to be
stronger. In fact, there is no evidence as to what the appellant did during the
time intervening between when appellant heard Francisco's afternoon
statements and when appellant went at night to the auditorium to have
Francisco arrested by the Japanese soldiers accompanying him and his
brother Mariano. But the natural relationship between the two incidents
makes unnecessary any evidence as to appellant's conduct and actions during
the intervening period.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the theory of the Solicitor General is correct;
RULING:
No. the theory of the Solicitor General is not correct. The two witness rule must
be adhered to in each and every external manifestation of the overt act in issue.
Francisco’s going to the Ibarra house in search of the revolver, is a single overt
act, distinct and independent frim his overt act in requiring Magno, when the
latter was at the garrison, to produce the revolver. The searching of the revolver
in the ibarra house is one thing, and the requiring to produce the revolver in the
garrison is another, Although both acts may logically be presumed to have
answered the same purpose, that of confiscating Magno’s revolver, the
singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts, conversely, there
should have been 2 witnesses each to the said overt acts.
Consequently, the lower court erred in not pronouncing that the first count was
not proven and in subsequently ruling francisco as guilty thereof.
RATIO:
The 2 witness rule in proving treason must be observed in each and every
external manifestation of the overt act in issue. Different (overt) acts done with
a single purpose cannot be constituted as one single act. each overt act of
treason, although dose with the same purpose, should be, respectively, proven
by at least 2 witnesses.
HELD:
In a decision penned by Judge Angel S. Gamboa, concurred in by Judges Jose
Bernabe and Emilio Rilloraza, all of them of the People's Court, accused
Francisco Abad was found guilty of the complex crime of treason with
homicide and sentenced to death, to pay a fine of P15,000, to indemnify the
heirs of Osias Salvador in the amount of P2,000, and to pay costs.
The information charges appellant of the crime of treason as defined and
penalized under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code by giving aid and
comfort to the Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces during the
period comprised between December 24, 1943, and September 26, 1944

3. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

VS.LORENZO MORALES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No.
L-4533, May 28, 1952 ]91 Phil. 445 ;

FACTS:
The defendant, Lorenzo Morales, was charged with the crime of treason in a
two-count information, count one of which was abandoned by the
prosecution.
The facts as found by the trial court and supported by the evidence for the
prosecution are briefly as follows: In a raid made by a group of Japanese and
Makapili in the early morning of December 12, 1944, in Santa Lucia, San
Miguel, Bulacan, Ricardo Velayo and Rufino Velayo, brothers, were
arrested from their house. During the raid, the appellant, armed with a gun,
remained downstairs as a guard. At about 10:00 o’clock in the same morning
Ricardo and Rufino Velayo, together with Fermin Chico, Alejo Velayo,
Arsenio Pacheco, Maximo Ramos, Bonifacio de Jesus and Salvador
Eusebio, also arrested from other places in Santa Lucia, were taken near the
house of Rosalina de Guzman where they were tortured to death, with the
exception of Bonifacio de Jesus, Maximo Ramos, and Salvador Eusebio.
The trial court was correct in finding the appellant guilty. The two witness-
rule was fully met. Counsel for appellant doubts the veracity of Salvador
Eusebio, because the latter was not mentioned in the information as one of
the victims. Even without said witness, however, the testimony of Maximo
Ramos and Rosalina de Guzman is sufficient. No ulterior motive on the part
of the witnesses for the prosecution has been shown, so that it cannot be
argued that they were biased against the appellant. There can be no dispute
that the victims were guerrillas, because the appellant himself and his
witness, Cirilo Domingo, admitted that fact.
The dead bodies were buried near the place of the torture, but those of
Ricardo Velayo and Rufino Velayo were later exhumed and buried in
Gapan, Nueva Ecija. The appellant, however, though present on the occasion
when the victims were tortured, did not actually take part in the fatal
ceremony. All those thus apprehended and killed were guerrillas.

ISSUE:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

RULLING:
The defendant, Lorenzo Morales, was charged with the crime of treason in a
two-count information, count one of which was abandoned by the
prosecution
Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.