Criminal Law II
1st Year - LLB
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-743 October 11, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee,
vs.
POLICARPIO DUMAPIT, defendant-appellant.
Ildefonso de Guzman-Mendiola and Jose V.
Lesaca for appellant.
Assistant Solicitor General Carmelino G.
Alvendia and Solicitor Guillermo E. Torres for
appellee.
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the
People's Court finding the appellant, Policarpio
Dumapit, guilty of treason and imposing upon
him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, a fine of
1
ten thousand pesos, and the costs.
The information charged six counts, but the
People's Court based appellant's conviction only
on counts IV and VI. Under count IV, the
appellant alleged to have caused, with the aid of
a group of Constabulary soldiers, the arrest in
barrio Balingahili, municipality of Botolan,
province of Zambales, in March, 1943, of eight
guerrillas who were thereafter investigated and
tortured by the Constabulary and the Japanese
and finally confined in the provincial jail for
about three months. Under count VI, the
appellant is accused of having issued on April
14, 1943, an order to Andres Atanasio, then
Chief of the Non-Christian Tribes of the East
Zambales Mountains in Macasan, Botolan,
Zambales, enjoining Andres Atanasio and his
men to capture, dead or alive, all Americans
roaming in the forests of Zambales, and to
report the result of his mission to Onofre
Dienzo, Superintendent of the Non-Christian
Tribes of Zambales.
Upon a careful review of the evidence, we are
convinced that a reversal of the appealed
judgment is in order. As to count IV, we note
that only three of the alleged victims testified for
the prosecution. They were Federico Decag,
Emilio Trapse and Catalino Dumangas. These,
however, especially the last two, admitted that
they were investigated for, and suspected of,
having burned the house of Pedro Daco. (Pages
115, 131, 132 and 133, t. s. n.) Aside from the
fact that the appellant denied having had any
hand in the arrest in question, the circumstance
remains that said arrest was effected as a result
of the common crime of arson. That the matter
had no treasonous significance is shown by the
further fact that those arrested were confined
for almost the whole period of their detention in
the provincial jail, and not in the Japanese
garrison. If the Japanese in some way
intervened, it was undoubtedly because they
had their own eyes and ears even in civil offices
and they merely wanted to be sure that any
disorder was not directed against their
authority and safety. But said intervention,
without more, cannot be attributed to the
voluntary invitation or denunciation on the part
of the appellant or the Constabulary. Appellants
alleged authorship of the arrest is inconsistent,
moreover, with the affidavit of Federico Decag
(Exhibit 1) to the effect that the appellant helped
in having him and his companions released.
F. Sagot
Neither is the charged in count VI tenable. The
lone witness for the prosecution on this score is
Andres Atanasio who had conspicuously
supplied what is sufficient to exculpate the
appellant; for it is noteworthy that this witness
categorically testified that, as the appellant was
handing over the written order for the capture
of all Americans, the appellant told him to
disregard the same. (P. 36, t.s.n.) The appellant
admits having written the order, but
corroborates witness Andres Atanasio in the
latter's exculpatory testimony.
The immediate background of the appellant is
further refutation of the likelihood that he had
any treasonable intent. The appellant was
before the outbreak of the last war a corporal of
the Manila Harbor Police and, upon order of his
chief Alejo Valdes, was even the one who was
entrusted with the task of taking the personal
properties of the family of President Quezon to
the motorship Edil. If the appellant had
undergone police training and become a
member of the Constabulary during the
Japanese occupation, it was at the behest of the
then mayor of Botolan (Juan M. Corom) and
provincial governor (Dantes), and with the
 Criminal Law II
1st Year - LLB
knowledge and acquiescence of the guerilla unit
to which the appellant belonged. Indeed, the
appellant was known to the underground men
as "Ave Maria."
The appealed judgment is therefore reversed
and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio.
So ordered.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla,
Montemayor and Torres, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
TUASON, J., dissenting:
I am of the firm conviction that the appellant is
guilty and that the judgment of the lower court
should be affirmed. The findings of the court
below deserve our respect not only because the
trial judges were in the best of position to gauge
the relative credibility of the witnesses but
because, independent of all that, the said
findings are supported by an overwhelming
preponderance of evidence.
The lower court found the defendant guilty of
counts No. 4 and No. 6 upon a careful and
thorough analysis of the proofs. It says:
2 Cargo No. 4.
4. That in or about March, 1943, or thereabouts,
the accused Policarpio Dumapit, intent to give
aid and comfort to the enemy, traitorously led a
group of Bureau of Constabulary soldiers to
barrio Ballinggahilli, municipality of Botolan,
Province of Zambales, and then and there, acting
in band and with the help of armed men, caused
the arrest of one Federico Decag and seven
others charging them with being guerrillas, as a
result of which they were all taken to the
Japanese military garrison in Iba, Zambales,
where they were tortured and maltreated and
afterwards confined for about three months.
Se halla bien establecido por los testigos de la
acusacion Federico Decag. Emilio Trapse y
Catalino Dumangas que en una noche del mes de
Marzo de 1943 se quemo la casa de Pedro Daco
en el barrio de Balangahili, municipio de
Botolan, provincia de Zambales; que el dia
siguiente el acusado, en compañ ia de algunos
policias y soldados constabularios, arresto a
Pedro Dumangas, Federico Decag, Alberto Diego,
Isaias Decag, Catalino Dumangas, Emilio Trapse,
Domingo Baluyot y Primitivo Ferrer; que estos
fueron llevados a la casa del acusado Policarpio
Dumapit en el municipio de Botolan donde
fueron castigados sobre el incendio dela casa de
Daco y preguntados si eran guerrilleros; que
fueron llevados al Cuartel de la Constabularia en
Iba, don de fueron maniatados, y despues
conducidos al cuartel de los Japoneses donde
otra vez fueron investigados, y, de resultas de
dicha investigacion enviados a la carcel, donde
estuvieron confinados tres meses. Elmotivo del
arresto de estos individuos fue la sos pecha de
que, siendo guerrilleros, que maron por
venganza la casa de Pedro Daco quien era
considerado pro-japones y Presidente de la
Neighborhood Association.
La defensa del acusado consiste en que el no fue
quien arresta Pedro Dumangas y compañ eros
sino que fueron los soldados del Cabo Datuga, y
que la causa del arresto no era porque dichos
individuos eran sospechosos de pertenecer a las
guerrillas, sino porque eran los autores del
incendio de la casa de Pedro Daco.
Pedro Dumangas, uno de los arrestados,
declarando como testigo de la defensa, dijo que
el acusado no estaban entre los que
learrestaron; que el no fue llevado a la casa de
dicho acusado, y que fue en el Cuartel de la
F. Sagot
Constabularia de Iba donde le investigaron por
primera vez. Pero por otra parte dice tambien
este testigo que el fue arrestado antes que los
demas, y el vio aestos por primera vez aquel dia
en el Cuartel de la Constabularia en Iba. Este
testimonio no desvirtua el de los testigos de la
acusacion que, unanimes y de una manera
categorica, manifestaron que el acusado estaba
entre los policias y constabularios que
practicaron el arresto.lawphi1.nêt
Nos confirma en esta conviccion el hecho de que
al tiempo de este suceso el acusado era miembro
de la Constabularia y Supervisor de las fuerzas
de la policia en la provincia de Zambales, y como
tal era el leader de aquel grupo de policias y
constabularios que verifico el arresto.
Para robustecer su defensa, el acusado declaro
que el advirtioa Pedro Dumangas que no dijera
en la investigacion que el era guerrillero y que el
trabajo por la libertad de este y de sus
compañ eros, testimonio que fue confirmado por
dicho testigo Dumangas.
Pero esta Corte se resiste a creer este
testimonio; porque entre todos los arrestados
solamente a Pedro Dumangas es a quien hizo tal
advertencia el acusado; y segundo, porque si el
 Criminal Law II
1st Year - LLB
acusado real y verdaderamente hubiera
trabajado por la libertad de Dumangas y sus
compañ eros, no hubiesen estos confinados en
lacarcel de Iba por un periodo de tres meses.
Referente a la causa del arresto, aun su
poniendo que este sedebio al incendio de la casa
de Pedro Daco, como nos hace creerla defensa,
es evidente que los que llevaron a cabo dicho
arresto estaban en la creencia de que el incendio
fue tramado y perpetrado por guerrilleros,
impulsados por el deseo de vengarse contrael
propietario de la casa que, poseyendo
sentimientos japonofilos y siendo Presidente de
la Neighborhood Association, una organizacion
civica creada por la administracion militar
japonesa, era inflexible y duro en el
cumplimiento de los deberes de sus miembros
conrespecto a las patrulla contra los guerrilleros
y celoso de su autoridad para que no llegaran a
estos, y en particular a su jefe, el Capitan Ralph
McGuire, los alimentos que necesitaban. Esto lo
declara elmismo Pedro Dumangas, testigo de la
defensa, quien tambien añ ade que en la
investigacion a que el fue sometido en el Cuartel
de la Constabularia en Iba le preguntaron si el
era guerrillero.
3 Cargo No. 6.
"6. That on or about April 14, 1943, the accused
Policarpio Dumapit, for the purpose and with
the intent of giving aid and comfort to the
enemy, issued an order addressed to Andres
Atanacio, then Chief of the Non-Christian Tribes
of the East Zambales Mountains at Marazo,
Botolan, Zambales, enjoining said Andres
Atanacio and all men under the latter's
command to capture, dead or alive, all
Americans who were then reported roaming in
the forests of the Zambales mountains, and, to
insure compliance with said order, the accused
Policarpio Dumapit instructed agent Andres
Atanacio to report of his achievements in
connection with the said order, to the accused
through Atanacio's superior, Onofre Dienzo,
Superintendent of the Non-Christian Tribes of
Zambales."
El acusado corroborando la declaracion del
testigo del Gobierno Andres Atanacio, admitio
que el Exhibit A fue real y verdaderamente
escrito y firmado por el dirigido al mencionado
Andres Atanacio, quien, dicho sea de paso, era
antes de la guerra empleado en la Oficina de
Tribus No Cristianas y una gran influencia
entrelos montañ eses de Zambales, ordenando la
captura de "cualquier americano, muerto o vivo,
que encontraran en las montañ as" (to capture,
dead or alive, upon sight).
El acusado explico que esta carta fue escrita por
el bajo orden terminante de Major Murata,
Comandante de la guarnacion japonesaen
Zambales, a sugestion de Onofre Dienzo; que el
no tuvo otromedio mas que cumplir dicha orden
y que el dio instrucciones a Andres Atanacio que
no hiciera caso de ella, testimonio que fue
corroborado por este en repreguntas hechas por
el Abogado de la defensa.
Andres Atanacio es un detenido en la carcel de
Munting Lupay acusado del delito de traicion; el
instinto comun de conservacion y defensa entre
los detenidos y acusados del mismo delito y el
compañ erismo que engendra la vida de prision,
asi como la amistadantigua entre el acusado
Dumapit y este testigo siendo ambos de Botolan,
es la explicacion de la ultima parte del
testimonio de este testigo que ha cogido de
sorpresa al acusado especial, a quien dicho
testigo no hizo mencion del referido hecho antes
desentarse en el banquillo de los testigos.
Por otro lado, es dificil creer que Onofre Dienzo
F. Sagot
hiciera talsugestion al Comandante Murata, toda
vez que Dienzo mismo hubierapodido dar dicha
orden a Atanacio sin necesidad de valerse del
acusado, teniendo en cuenta que el trabajaba
con los japoneses y prestaba a estos una abierta
y decidida cooperacion en la rendicion y
ecterminacion de las guerrillas.
Ahora examinemos la defensa general
interpuesta por el acusado de que el pertenecio
a la guerrillas y ayudo a las mismas,
suministrandolas comida y armas y dandolas
informaciones secretasde los movimientos de
las tropas japonesas en Zambales, y portanto
mal podia el acusado haber cometido el delito de
traicion. La defenda pretende, por el testimonio
de Antonio Decano y otros, que el acusado desde
1942 fue guerrillero y que uno de los servicios
mas importantes y utiles que el presto a las
guerrillas fue la informacion suministrada por el
acusado al testigo Decano porconducto del
Alcalde Corum de la expedicion llevada a cabo
porlos japoneses hacia el Oeste de la provincia el
mes de Septiembre de 1972, que culmino en la
refriega de Pastak y que resulto fatal a los
japoneses.
 Criminal Law II
1st Year - LLB
Y para reforzar su declaracion, Decado presento
una seriede notas o cartas, especialmente el
Exhibit 3, que se supone habersido escrito por el
acusado con el pseudonimo de "Ave Maria". Este
testigo, sin embargo, dice que mientras recuerda
a quiencorresponde el pseudonimo de "Ave
Maria", ignora quien usabael nombre de "Jack",
que aparece al pie de varias notas escritas casi al
mismo tiempo que el Exhibit 3. Esta y otras
incongruencias encontramos en la declaracion
de este testigo, y observamos en su manera de
declarar cierta incertidumbre e inseguridad, que
no podemos dar credito a su testimonio. Entre
los testigos de la defensa, ademas de Antonio
Decano, se debe hacer mencion tambiende Juan
Corum y Gerardo Dumlao, a cuyas declaraciones
la defensa parece conceder una gran
importancia.
El primero relata la inteligencia que tenia con el
acusado para la proteccion del pueblo y de sus
habitantes cuando al tiempo de la tanponderada
refriega de Pastak el huyo a las montanas, y el
segundo se refiere a la ayuda que le presto el
acusado, advirtiendole que era buscado por los
japoneses y suministrandole despues balas de
revolver, ropa y comida. Mientras el testimonio
delprimero se halla mancillado con el tinte de la
4
arcialidad habiendosido el que recomendo al
acusado para estudiar en la Constabulary
Training School, notamos en la declaracion del
segundo contradicciones sobre hechos
importantes, pues mientras el dice que en
losmeses de Agosto y Septiembre de 1943, el vio
cinco veces alacusado en el sitio de Maguisguis,
barrio de Pongbato, municipio de Botolan, el
acusado declara que en aquellos meses
estabaprosiguiendo sus estudios en la Academia
de Oficiales de Manila, y mientras dicho testigo
relata que el vio al acuasdo en el monte de
Mabubuyan, barrio de Pongbato, el mes de
octubre de 1944,el acusado Dumapit dijo que el
se hallaba en dichos mes y añ o estacianado en
Alaminos, Pangasinan, como Junior Officer de la
Septima Compañ ia de la Constabularia.
Aparte de las muchas contradicciones en que
han incurrido los testigos de la defensa que
declararon sobre este punto, observamos que
todos, o casi todos ellos, era guerrilleros que se
rindieron y despues ocuparon puestos mas o
menos importantes bajo el gobierno japones. Es
evidente que estos ex-guerrilleros, una vez al
servicio de los japoneses, tenian mas o menos
contacto y sostenia con elacusado relaciones
oficiales mas y menos cordiales, que tenian
queengendrar una fuerte camaraderia y cierta
afinidad de ideas. Si el acusado no se hubiera
identificado realmente con el
enemigoprestandole importantes y meritorios
servicios, dignos de mejorcausa, hubiese
aprovechado la brillante oportunidad que se le
presento en las postrimerias de 1944 cuando los
oficiales y soldados de la Constabularia,
destacados en Pangasinan, desertaron de las
filas y se remontaron para preparar el terreno y
ayudar a lasfuerzas libertadoras que dentro de
poco iban a desembarcar en Lingayen.
El acusado contiende que a fines de 1944, volvio
a su pueblo y organizo una unidad guerrillera,
tanto es asi que fue detenido cuatro dias por los
japoneses por estas ctividades, pero de
sudeclaracion (n.t. p. 5.) se deduce que el, en vez
de dedicarse actividades guerrilleras,
simplemente se quedo en su pueblo de Botolan
cuando dijo:
Q. What did you do in Botolan? — A. I simply
stayed there.
En vez de unirse a sus compañ eros y seguir el
ejemplo de estos prefirio retirarse a su pueblo y
es porque no solamente no poseiaaquella fuerza
F. Sagot
interior que le compele al hombre a hacer
sacrificios por su patria, sino porque habia
cambiado el ideario de su vida, que brantando
su lealtad a America y a su pais.
En la primera sentencia que este Tribunal dicto
hemos dicho que la defensa comun que los
acusados suelen alegar de habersido
guerrilleros y de haber ayudado a las guerrillas,
debe serrecibida con cautela, y aqui tenemos un
caso en que las pruebas de la defensa no han
conseguido convencer al Tribunal.
Respecto a la intencion (intent) del acusado de
cometer el delito de traicion, esta se infiere muy
claramente de los mismos actos externos (overt
acts) y de otros hechos establecidos en el curso
de la vista.
That the accused's collaboration with the
Japanese was a token one designed to fool the
enemy does not square with the nature,
intensity and persistency of his activities and
their consequences on the victims of his betrayal
and on the cause of his country. He was directly
instrumental and the moving spirit in the killing
of the two Americans and the surrender of
guerrillas. A close reading of the record should
 Criminal Law II
1st Year - LLB
convince any one beyond doubt that it was the
other way around; if he burnt candles for both
sides, his true longing was for the devil. He
feigned connection and sympathy with the
guerrillas as a means of protection to himself if
and when the day of judgment arrived. Though
the defendant was acquitted of their following
acts thanks to the severity of the requirement
for conviction in treason cases, they are
nevertheless conclusive proofs of the charge
that he gave aid and comfort to the enemy with
sincerity, with no mental reservation.
Jose Otero, property owner, and Philippine
citizen of Spanish descent, testified that on April
3,1943, the accused, Onofre Dienzo, Andres
Pascua, Elpidio Gantang, and several other spies
for the Japanese came to his cattle ranch in
Botolan, followed a few hours later by between
40 and 50 soldiers; that Dumapit and his
companions dispatched letters to the
Dulandulan brothers, Negritos or Negrito
mestizos who were guerrillas under the
command of Captain Ralph McGuire, urging
them to surrender; that the Dulandulan brothers
were later prevailed upon to lay down their
arms and side with japanese; that Dumapit and
his companions held meetings with people in
5
Botolan for the purpose of killing Captain
McGuirre; that on those occasions Policarpio
Dumapit publicly offered a P300 reward for the
head of Captain McGuirre who was, as a matter
of fact, afterward beheaded and his head was
brought to town for exhibition; that Dumapit
also offered a reward of P100 for the head of
any other American.
This testimony is corroborated by Marcos
Dioyan and Juan Famulacano. The latter stated
in addition to Oteros testimony, that Dumapit
and Dienzo agreed to approach Gregorio Magno
and Victorio Dulandulan "so that the guards who
were on the way leading to the place where
Capt. McGuirre was would be removed to
facilitate his capture."
Victorio Dulandulan testified that he was a
guerilla and one of the bodyguards of Captain
McGuirre; that McGuirre was killed by Dienzo,
Dumapit's confederate and co-worker for the
japs.
Graciano Dullon testified that he was a
municipal policeman in Botolan in January,
1943. One day in that month, Wenceslao Dumlao
came to the police station asking for a police
detail during the town fiesta of Poongbato, and
he and other policeman proceeded to that barrio
in the afternoon of January 23. As they were
eating in Poongbato, someone came to tell
Dumlao that there was an American south of the
town. They followed the informer to the place
indicated and there saw an American. Dumlao
talked with the American and offered him rice
cake. At midnight, he and his police companions,
Dumlao, several children and the Americans
started to go to town but rested in San Juan on
the way. At 5 o'clock in the morning, one truck
arrived loaded with japanese accompanied by
Policarpio Dumapit. The Japanese surrounded
the house where the American was while
Policarpio Dumapit approached it and ordered
the American to come down. The American did
as he was ordered and surrendered his revolver
to Dumapit. After the American handed his
revolver he was taken to the truck and they all
left. This American's name was Mann and he
was afterwards killed by the Japanese.
Arcadio Darosin testified that in January, 1943,
he was awaken from his sleep in his house by
his wife who told him that somebody was
downstairs looking for him. He opened the
windows and saw Wenceslao Dumlao, who told
F. Sagot
him that he wanted to send the witness to some
place. Dumlao ordered him to go to town to see
Policarpio Dumapit. He hesitated but was told to
"get moving" or else . . . Dumlao told him to tell
Dumapit that Dumlao told him tell Dumapit that
Dumlao was, coming with an American. He went
to see Dumapit at about 3 o'clock in the morning
and transmitted to Dumapit Dumlao's message.
Thereupon Dumapit left but later came back and
told him to come along. They went to the
municipal building. Later one truck came , and
Dumapit drove to the Japanese garrison. There,
Japanese soldiers, about 10 in number, boarded
the truck after which they all went to San Juan.
When the truck arrived in that town it drew up
in front of the witness's house and the Japanese
got off. The witness stayed home while the
Japanese, Dumapit, and Dumlao, who met them
when they alighted from the truck marched
toward east although he could not tell the exact
place of destination.
Considered with Graciano Dullons testimony,
the destination was the house where the
American was located.
 Criminal Law II
1st Year - LLB
The veracity of these witnesses is unassailable.
With the possible exception of Otero, they
testified with measured restraint.

The record is full of other revelations of

defendant's perfidy, deeds inconsistent with his
pretended loyalty to his country. The above
should suffice for illustration and to disprove
the claim that defendant's letter to Andres
Atanacio, was written by order of a Japanese
officer, a claim in itself and on its face ridiculous.

Reyes, J., concurs in this dissent.

6 F. Sagot