ON BANK

[GR No. L-262. March 29, 1947.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. VALENTIN TRINIDAD

BAGALAWIS, defendant-appellant.

D. Menandro Quiogue on behalf of the appellant.

The First Assistant Attorney General Mr. Reyes and the Attorney Mr. Avancéña
on behalf of the Government.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; TREASON; PROVISION OF SERVICES

AS MILITARY POLICE OF THE ENEMY, COMPLAINT SUFFICIENCY OF THE. . — The
allegation that the defendant served as a member of the Japanese military police during
the period of time between November, 1943, and January, with the intention of giving
help and facilities to the enemy, seeing him constantly armed with a pistol and
displaying a band or gallon that distinguished and characterized him as such a member
of the Japanese military police, is adequate and sufficient as an imputation for the
crime of treason under the terms of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. In that
allegation are embedded the two elements that make up the crime, namely: (a)
adherence to the enemy; (b) act by virtue of which this facility and assistance is
given. What better bond?

2. ID; ID; ID; ID; SEARCH, PERSECUTION AND CAPTURE OF GUERRILLERS. — The

accused tries to exculpate himself by saying that his services were only to keep peace
and order in the locality. The evidence that is copious in the case file does not support
this exculpation. It is clear that he actively helped the Japanese in the search, pursuit
and capture of guerrillas. Bearing in mind that these were the ones who encouraged the
resistance movement against the invader, giving said movement the relative military
effectiveness that could be achieved under the circumstances,

3. ID; ID; ID; ID; PROOF; FACTS NOT ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT; INTENT OF THE

ACCUSED. — The defense attorney also accuses the People's Court of proceeding as
erroneous in allowing facts not specifically alleged in the complaint to be proven,
notwithstanding the defendant's objection, namely: CC's arrest on November 23,
1943; the zoning of Imus on December 4, 1944; CR's arrest on December 8,
1948; EO's arrest on May 9, 1944, and LJ's arrest on May 15, 1944. This objection by
appellant also has little merit. Although not specifically alleged in the complaint, such
facts could be proven by the prosecutor, first, by virtue of the specific and positive
charge set forth in the complaint, that the accused served as a member of the Kempei
Tai, the Japanese military police, one of whose main objectives was to overthrow and
annihilate the resistance movement through the cruel and barbaric process of zoning in
which entire nuclei of the population were subjected to tremendous torment and
deprivation, and through the persecution and capture of guerrillas; and second, to
demonstrate the intention of the accused to join the enemy and to lend him aid and
facilities, since it is rightly argued that "there is no legal prohibition against the
admissibility, as evidence, of acts not alleged in the complaint to establish the intention
 of the accused. and through the persecution and capture of guerrillas; and second, to
demonstrate the intention of the accused to join the enemy and to lend him aid and
facilities, since it is rightly argued that "there is no legal prohibition against the
admissibility, as evidence, of acts not alleged in the complaint to establish the intention
of the accused. and through the persecution and capture of guerrillas; and second, to
demonstrate the intention of the accused to join the enemy and to lend him aid and
facilities, since it is rightly argued that "there is no legal prohibition against the
admissibility, as evidence, of acts not alleged in the complaint to establish the intention
of the accused.

4." ID.; ID.; ID.; INSUPERASSABLE FEAR OR IRRESISTIBLE FORCE, AS A DEFENSE;

CASE OF ACTS. — The defense of duress — insurmountable fear or irresistible force
with which the accused seeks to exculpate himself, obviously cannot be sustained. The
vague fear that he alleges has no basis in the facts and circumstances of this case, and
it is certainly not the exempting fear that the law speaks of.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PEOPLE'S COURT; LAW No. 682, ARTICLE 2, VALIDITY OF

THE. . — Law No. 682 does not define a new crime, it does not even increase the
penalties prescribed by our treason law. The treason judged by the People's Court is the
same treason defined in Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, no more, no less. No
new element has been added or removed from the crime. No act is punishable that was
not defined and punished by the treason law existing at the time said act was
performed. All that the aforementioned Law No. 682 does is form a new court — the
People's Court — to prosecute the treasonous acts carried out during the war with
Japan, provided that the corresponding complaint has been filed within a certain time
limit, Jurisdiction is maintained in the courts of first instance after said limit. The law,
therefore, is of a purely procedural nature; therefore, valid, constitutional. In terms of
procedures, no right is acquired. The judicial machinery, above all, can be reformed or
implemented, and the jurisdiction readjusted, when imperative reasons of convenience
and public interest so advise, without this being considered as ex post facto legislation.

6. ID; ARTICLE VI, SECTION 25, OF THE CONSTITUTION; INSERTION OF THE NON-PAB

THE COMMONWEALTH. — Article VI, section 25, of the Constitution on declaration of
war was inserted not for the Commonwealth, but for the Republic after independence
was proclaimed at the end of the 10-year transitional period. Although the
Commonwealth was a semi-sovereign state—according to the Constitution, sovereignty
rests with the people—that sovereignty was conditioned by the terms of the
Independence Act in the sense that the Commonwealth, in terms of its foreign
relations, between these the question naturally of the war, was subject to the
jurisdiction and control of the Government of the United States. So America's
declaration of war against Japan virtually included the Commonwealth.

DECISION

BRIONES, M .:
It is about the appeal filed by the defendant, Valentin Trinidad Bagalawis, against the
sentence issued by the Court of Justice in which he is sentenced, for the crime of
betrayal, to suffer the death penalty, to pay a fine of P5,000 and the costs of the
trial. Seven counts were brought against the defendant: the lower court found him
guilty on three — Counts Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and exonerated him on the other four —
Counts Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Before the war broke out, the appellant practiced his profession as a dentist in San
Roque, Cavite. According to his own testimony, he studied secondary education at the
"Silliman Institute," in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental, where he obtained a Bachelor of
Arts degree. He immigrated to the United States of America in 1912, remaining there
until 1920. In America he married a Missouri woman named Maria Flores, with whom he
has had three children. The family came to the Philippines after 1920. It appears that
well before the outbreak of the last war Appellant was separated from his wife, living,
by his own admission, with a mistress. Reading the files, a rather strange thing has
caught our attention: when the appellant case with Maria Flores gave the Suez Canal as
the place of his birth. Asked why he did this, he replied that when he was a child he
heard a rumor that he had been born on said channel and that they had even
insinuated that the person who passed for his father in the Philippines was not his real
father; and: that his suspicions on this matter were half confirmed when he saw that
she was something different from his brothers; That is why in America, already in full
use of reason, he gave the Suez Canal as the place of his birth. However, there is no
doubt about the nationality of the appellant, for not only does he raise no question in
his pleading on this point, but when some Judges of the People's Court ordered him to
put aside evasions and give a categorical answer about his nationality, he finally
admitted to being Filipino. that his suspicions on this point were half confirmed when he
saw that he was something different from his brothers; That is why in America, already
in full use of reason, he gave the Suez Canal as the place of his birth. However, there is
no doubt about the nationality of the appellant, for not only does he raise no question
in his pleading on this point, but when some Judges of the People's Court ordered him
to put aside evasions and give a categorical answer about his nationality, he finally
admitted to being Filipino. that his suspicions on this point were half confirmed when he
saw that he was something different from his brothers; That is why in America, already
in full use of reason, he gave the Suez Canal as the place of his birth. However, there is
no doubt about the nationality of the appellant, for not only does he raise no question
in his pleading on this point, but when some Judges of the People's Court ordered him
to put aside evasions and give a categorical answer about his nationality, he finally
admitted to being Filipino.

It is also on record, by the appellant's own admission, that before the outbreak of the
last war he had been a candidate of the Sakdalist party for a municipal position in an
election held in Cavite, although he qualified his admission by saying that he was not
formally affiliated with the Sakdalist party, but that this party spontaneously nominated
him, and since he sympathized with his independence program and the methods to
carry it out, he accepted the nomination. It is an established thing that the Sakdalist
party and its leaders did not hide their sympathies or pensions towards Japan and
expected from it effective help for the realization of their goals.

CHARGE NO. one
Under the presentation of the Presiding Judge Hon. Leopoldovira, the People's Court
gives in its sentence a detailed and well-founded summary of the facts proven under
charge No. 1 of the complaint. Being, we are substantially satisfied with said summary,
it is reproduced below:  jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Regarding charge No. 1, the evidence presented by the Special Prosecutor fully
establishes that the accused, during the period from November 1943 to December
1944, in different places within the jurisdiction of this Court and especially in the
province of Cavite, acted and served as a member of the Japanese military police
(Kempetai), and that during that time said defendant was always seen carrying a
revolver and on his left arm a band of white cloth on top of which Japanese characters
were written in red ink, the which band identified him as one of the members of said
military police, and, accompanying the Japanese soldiers, he provided them with the
reports that were necessary for their purposes of investigation, persecution and
revenge,especially those who were suspected of being guerrillas.

"Such statement of facts is strongly established by more than five testimonies, as

follows: 
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Catalino Cipriaso was arrested on November 23, 1943 in Kawit, Cavite, suspected of
being a guerrilla, as he was in fact , together with others called Buenaventura Jimenez
and untal Ating. During the two weeks of his arrest, states the witness, 'I was severely
tortured, receiving slaps, kicks and hit with a piece of wood by making me drink water
in Kran canhdad until my belly swelled, and on other occasions they applied "jiu jitsu"
to me with the in order to reveal the activities of the guerrillas in Cavite, mainly those
of the 'Tanib Gucrrilla' Said arrest was carried out by the Japanese accompanied, as
always, by the accused.

"Santiago Cruz, on December 4, 1944, also saw the accused in Tinabonan, Imus,
Cavite, in the company of the Japanese and on an occasion when there was 'zoning' in
said place.

"Miguel Aguinaldo and Elpidio Rieta on the same date saw the accused accompanied by
Japanese in number of twenty (20), all armed including the accused with the usual
band on his arm, being arrested with other people including women and children, due
to said 'zoning', and once tied, all were put in a truck and driven to the site where the
investigation of the arrested took place.

"Another prosecution witness named Cecilio Reyes asserted that on March 1944 and
late at night, he was arrested in his Panamitan, Kawit, Cavite, by the Japanese
accompanied by the defendant here for suspecting that he was a guerrilla; that it was
the defendant himself who He ordered him to be apprehended and duly taken in a truck
to a place called 'Sangley Point' Canacao, Cavite, which served as a barracks for the
Japanese, Cecilio Reyes receiving such terrible blows that until now he had declared
himself before this Court he could barely sit in the chair testificatical, mistreatment that
took place in 'Legaspi Landing', Manila, where he remained confined for two months,
being the object of continuous investigations in the presence of the defendant here.

"Honorio Caerme declared that during the Japanese occupation he frequently saw the
accused in the company of Japanese soldiers, being arrested on December 8, 1943 in
Caridad, Cavite, for months accompanied, as always, by the accused, being
investigated in his presence on If the witness was a member of a guerrilla and since he
denied this fact, the accused himself hit him with a piece of wood two inches wide and
one meter long on the hips and buttocks without the witness being able to specify the
number of blows received because the defendant beat him quickly, and that after said
mistreatment he was once again confined in his prison cell.

"It turns out from the testimony of Francisco Caerme that on December 8, 1943, the
defendant here, accompanied by Severo Andaya yas Alcazar, arrested the brother of
said Caerme named Honorio, an arrest that was made not by the Japanese but by the
defendant accompanied of the two Filipinos mentioned.

He was driven with his hands tied in a truck, to 'Legaspi Landing', guarded by Japanese
soldiers and the accused himself, and in the 'Court Martial' which was at that time in
the Manila Hotel, he was again investigated and, as refused to admit that he was a
guerrilla, the Japanese and the defendant mistreated him several times until he became
unconscious, also subjecting him to water treatment. That later they sent him to sign a
paper that he did not want, but that they forced him to do it and the next day, after
signing, they released him and a certain Japanese, acting as master of ceremonies, led
a kind of 'sermon' advising him not to say to no one that he had been mistreated and
that during the time of his incarceration he had been given very good food. guarded by
the Japanese soldiers and the accused himself, and in the 'Martial Court' which was at
that time in the Manila Hotel, he was again investigated and, as he refused to admit
that he was a guerrilla, the Japanese and the accused mistreated him several times.
times until he was unconscious, subjecting him to the water treatment as well. That
later they sent him to sign a paper that he did not want, but that they forced him to do
it and the next day, after signing, they released him and a certain Japanese, acting as
master of ceremonies, led a kind of 'sermon' advising him not to say to no one that he
had been mistreated and that during the time of his incarceration he had been given
very good food. guarded by the Japanese soldiers and the accused himself, and in the
'Martial Court' which was at that time in the Manila Hotel, he was again investigated
and, as he refused to admit that he was a guerrilla, the Japanese and the accused
mistreated him several times. times until he was unconscious, subjecting him to the
water treatment as well. That later they sent him to sign a paper that he did not want,
but that they forced him to do it and the next day, after signing, they released him and
a certain Japanese, acting as master of ceremonies, led a kind of 'sermon' advising him
not to say to no one that he had been mistreated and that during the time of his
incarceration he had been given very good food. As he refused to admit that he was a
guerrilla, the Japanese and the defendant mistreated him several times until he became
unconscious, also subjecting him to water treatment. That later they sent him to sign a
paper that he did not want, but that they forced him to do it and the next day, after
signing, they released him and a certain Japanese, acting as master of ceremonies, led
a kind of 'sermon' advising him not to say to no one that he had been mistreated and
that during the time of his incarceration he had been given very good food. As he
refused to admit that he was a guerrilla, the Japanese and the defendant mistreated
him several times until he became unconscious, also subjecting him to water
treatment. That later they sent him to sign a paper that he did not want, but that they
forced him to do it and the next day, after signing, they released him and a certain
Japanese, acting as master of ceremonies, led a kind of 'sermon' advising him not to
say to no one that he had been mistreated and that during the time of his incarceration
he had been given very good food.

"The accused's criminal activities did not cease here.

"Liberato C. Jimenez declared that on May 15, 1944, and being in the 'Star Restaurant'
of Sta. Cruz, Manila, where he had met with a nephew of his named Alberto Jimenez to
discuss the guerrillas, the aforementioned Liberato was arrested by two Japanese spies
at the direction of the accused and a certain Tomas Alcazar near the Monte de Piedad in
Manila, later being taken by car to the 'Port Terminal' of this city, where the Japanese
investigated him in the presence of the accused about guerrilla activities, and As he
refused to admit that he was a guerrilla, he was mistreated by the Japanese and the
accused hit him twice in the face as a result of which blood spurted from his mouth and
some teeth fell out of his gums, finally remaining in prison until the end of his life. June
30, 1944.

that some of the people arrested by the Japanese soldiers, due to the reports of the
accused, have not been found until now and we must presume that they ended their
lives in the hands of that barbarism. It is known that the Japanese did not practice their
executions except in secret. Such acts of aid and facilitation to the enemy demonstrate
that the defendant formed common cause with the Japanese, which is one of the
constitutive phases of treason as defined in article 114 of the Revised Penal Code." cralaw virtua1aw library

In relation to charge No. 1, the appellant raises the following points of error:  chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) That under said charge "no element of the crime of treason is alleged in the
complaint. It is only alleged that the accused served as 'Kempeitai' 'armed with a pistol'
and 'with a distinctive arm band of office.' The claim of 'for the purpose of giving and
with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy' is not enough." The defense attorney
argues that "the mere fact of being a Japanese military-police officer does not
constitute treason, because his services appeared to be needed to maintain local order,
arresting only those who violate the local criminal law (municipal laws)."  cralaw virtua1aw library

(b) That about the facts that were tried to prove in relation to charge No. 1 "only one
witness has testified for each fact, in violation of article 114, paragraph 2 of the Revised
Penal Code and Rule 123, section 97, of the Regulation of the Courts, except for what
refers to the zoning in Imus, Cavite, on December 4, 1944, about which three
witnesses testified, and the fact of the arrest of Honorio Caerme that took place on
December 8, 1943, about which they testified three witnesses, but Delfin Aguilar's
statement was rejected by the Court." "But" — the defense attorney continues — "these
facts of the zoning in Imus and the arrest of Honorio Caerme are not specifically alleged
in charge No. 1 of the complaint or in any part of it; Therefore, the statements of the
witnesses on these last two facts of the zoning and arrest of Honorio Caerme are
immaterial in this matter, duly objected to by the defense." . . "and therefore they
should be discarded or not taken into account. Regarding the facts mentioned above in
which only one witness has testified for each fact, their testimonies must also be
discarded or disregarded because they violate paragraph 2, article 114 of the Revised
Penal Code and section 97, Rule 123 of the Regulations of the Courts" (Appellant's
Argument, pp. 7, 8).

Regarding the first objection to charge No. 1 of the complaint, the Attorney General
argues that the allegation that the defendant served as a member of the Japanese
military police during the period of time between November, 1943, and January, 1945,
with the intention of giving aid and facilities to the enemy, seeing him constantly armed
with a pistol and displaying on his arm an ogalon band that distinguished him and
characterized him as such a member of the Japanese military police, is adequate and
sufficient as an imputation of the crime of treason under the terms of article 114 of the
Revised Penal Code. It is argued that the two elements that make up the crime are
embedded in this allegation, namely: (a) adherence to the enemy; (b) act by virtue of
which this facility and help is given to this question, and we estimate that with reason:
what better adhesion, help and facilities for the enemy can be asked to render services
in a body so indispensably so vital for himself and for his fighting forces as his military
police? (See Respublica v. M'Carty, 2 Dall., 36; 1 Law. ed., 300, 301.) The following has
been stated in this case: "The crime imputed to the defendant by the inclictment, is
that of levying war, by Joining the armies of the King of Great Britain. Enlisting
procuring any person to be enlisted in tlle service of the enemy, is clearly an act of
treason. By the defendant's own confession it appears that he actually enlisted in a
corps belonging to the enemy... 1 Law. ed., 300, 301.) In this case the following has
been stated: "The crime imputed to the defendant by the inclictment, is that of levying
war, by Joining the armies of the King of Great Britain. Enlisting procuring any person
to be enlisted in tlle service of the enemy, is clearly an act of treason.By the
defendant's own confession it appears that he actually enlisted in a corps belonging to
the enemy. 1 Law. ed., 300, 301.) In this case the following has been stated: "The
crime imputed to the defendant by the inclictment, is that of levying war, by Joining the
armies of the King of Great Britain. Enlisting procuring any person to be enlisted in tlle
service of the enemy, is clearly an act of treason.By the defendant's own confession it
appears that he actually enlisted in a corps belonging to the enemy.

The accused tries to exculpate himself by saying that his services were only to keep
peace and order in the locality. The evidence that is copious in the case file does not
support this exculpation. From the same portion of the sentence transcribed above, it is
clear that the accused actively helped the Japanese in the search, persecution and
capture of guerrillas. Bearing in mind that these were the ones who encouraged the
resistance movement against the invader, giving said movement the military
effectiveness that could be achieved under the circumstances, it is obvious that the
services rendered by the appellant enemy in the guerrilla raid had necessarily to go
beyond the simple and inoffensive municipal radio to become a real help and aid to
something in the broad realization of its military objectives.

With respect to the allegation that the rule of the two witnesses on the same act of
treason (to witness rule to the same overt act) has not been complied with in relation
to charge No. 1, the Attorney General argues that this lacks foundation because it has
been irrefutably established that on December 4, 1944 the appellant was seen by three
witnesses who have testified in the trial, serving as a member of the Japanese military
police in relation to the zoning of Imus, Cavite, for the arrest and capture of
guerrillas. It has also been established, through the statements of three witnesses, the
participation of the accused in the arrest of Honorio Caerme that took place 4 days after
the zoning of Imus, on the 8th of said month of December.

The defense attorney also criticizes the People's Court's procedure as erroneous in
allowing facts not specifically alleged in the complaint to be proven, notwithstanding the
defendant's objection, namely: the arrest of Catalino Cipriaso on November 23,
1943; the zoning of Imus on December 4, 1944; the arrest of Cecilio Reyes on
December 18, 1943; the arrest of Enrique Ortega on May 9, 1944, and the arrest of
Liberato Jimenez on May 15, 1944. This objection by the appellant also has no
merit. Although not specifically alleged in the complaint, such facts could be proven by
the prosecutor, first, by virtue of the specific and positive charge set forth in it, that the
accused served as a member of the Kempei Tai, the Japanese military police, one of
whose main objectives was to overthrow and annihilate the resistance movement
through the cruel and barbaric process of zoning in which entire nuclei of the population
were subjected to tremendous storms of deprivation, and through the persecution and
capture of guerrillas; and second, to demonstrate the intention of the accused to
adhere to the enemy and to provide him with help and facilitations, since it is rightly
argued that "there is no legal prohibition against the admissibility, as evidence, of acts
not alleged in the complaint to establish the intention of the accused." (See Respublica
v. Carlisle, 1 Dall., 35, Trial of Sir John Wedderbun, 18 How. St. Tr., 426, 427 'Trial of
Sir Richard Grahme [Lord Preston's Case], 2 How. Tr., 645, 727-728, 740; Trial of the
Regicides, 5 How Tr., 947, 976-977.) to demonstrate the intention of the accused to
adhere to the enemy and to lend him help and facilitations, since it is rightly argued
that "there is no legal prohibition against the admissibility, as evidence, of acts not
alleged in the complaint to establish the intention of the accused." (See Respublica v.
Carlisle, 1 Dall., 35, Trial of Sir John Wedderbun, 18 How. St. Tr., 426, 427 'Trial of Sir
Richard Grahme [Lord Preston's Case], 2 How. Tr., 645, 727-728, 740; Trial of the
Regicides, 5 How Tr., 947, 976-977.) to demonstrate the intention of the accused to
adhere to the enemy and to lend him help and facilitations, since it is rightly argued
that "there is no legal prohibition against the admissibility, as evidence, of acts not
alleged in the complaint to establish the intention of the accused." (See Respublica v.
Carlisle, 1 Dall., 35, Trial of Sir John Wedderbun, 18 How. St. Tr., 426, 427 'Trial of Sir
Richard Grahme [Lord Preston's Case], 2 How. Tr., 645, 727-728, 740; Trial of the
Regicides, 5 How Tr., 947, 976-977.) 18 How. St. Tr., 426, 427 'Trial of Sir Richard
Grahme [Lord Preston's Case], 2 How. Tr., 645, 727-728, 740; Trial of the Regicides, 5
How Tr., 947, 976-977.) 18 How. St. Tr., 426, 427 'Trial of Sir Richard Grahme [Lord
Preston's Case], 2 How. Tr., 645, 727-728, 740; Trial of the Regicides, 5 How Tr., 947,
976-977.)

With respect to the zoning of Imus, the defense attorney tries to discredit the evidence
of the accusation, pointing out a discrepancy that he considers fatal between the
testimony of Elpidio Rieta and that of Miguel Aguinaldo, while he declares that the
zoning began at the early in the morning, Aguinaldo says that they eat the same, at 9
in the morning. This contradiction, however, not only does not imply falsity in the
prosecution evidence. but it is a good sign of his sincerity and spontaneity — it shows
that there has been no attempt to give the impression of mechanical uniformity in
them. Rieta says that the zoning began at 3 in the morning because his brother was
arrested at that time and this was undoubtedly what led him to think that the zoning
had begun at that time. For his part, Aguinaldo says queos at around 9 in the morning
and that's when he found out the zoning was in progress. Between the house and that
of Aguinaldo there was a distance of 300 yards; so that the discrepancy was rather
psychological, due to the fact that both witnesses observed the same thing at different
times, under different impressions. Bear in mind, furthermore, that the zoning under
the Japanese military police was a long process, which lasted days, so that difference of
a few hours in the Rieta and Aguinaldo versions is unimportant. The essential thing is
that there was zoning, that the defendant participated in it as an agent of the Kempei
Tai, and against that there is no serious evidence. so that the discrepancy was rather
psychological, due to the fact that both witnesses observed the same thing at different
times, under different impressions. Bear in mind, furthermore, that the zoning under
the Japanese military police was a long process, which lasted days, so that difference of
a few hours in the Rieta and Aguinaldo versions is unimportant. The essential thing is
that there was zoning, that the defendant participated in it as an agent of the Kempei
Tai, and against that there is no serious evidence. so that the discrepancy was rather
psychological, due to the fact that both witnesses observed the same thing at different
times, under different impressions. Bear in mind, furthermore, that the zoning under
the Japanese military police was a long process, which lasted days, so that difference of
a few hours in the Rieta and Aguinaldo versions is unimportant. The essential thing is
that there was zoning, that the defendant participated in it as an agent of the Kempei
Tai, and against that there is no serious evidence.

CHARGE NO. 2

The facts that under this charge of the complaint have been proven by the statements
of two reliable witnesses and establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable
doubt, are those that are stated in the following manner in the judgment of the People's
Court, namely :  jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

a 'light transmitter,' and several light bulbs, all owned by Captain Vidal, but fortunately
they could not find him in his house. The clear and evident purpose was to arrest said
captain, whose testimony is fully confirmed by the witness Teofilo Encarnacion. This is
evidence that supports charge No. 2 of the complaint." (Decision pp. 1-2.)

The defense attorney, in his plea, points out a contradiction that he considers serious
and important between the testimony of the aforementioned guerrilla captain, Hugo
Vidal, and that of Teofilo Encarnacion, who confirms and corroborates it. While Vidal
says that when the Japanese soldiers from the Kempei Tai arrived, in a "jitney,"
accompanied by the appellant, he was in the municipal house talking to the treasurer,
Encarnacion asserts that Captain Vidal had not yet reached her. There is, however, no
such contradiction, and if there is, it is not so essential or serious as to discredit either
or both witnesses. Take into account what Encarnacion declares: Vidal and he were
walking towards the municipal house. "When we were" — says Encarnacion — "about
100 yards from the municipal house, Captain Vidal proceeded alone to the municipal
house. . . "Before Captain Vidal arrived, however, at the municipality, a 'jitney' came
with Japanese soldiers and a Filipino" (the defendant). It is noteworthy that Vidal does
not affirm positively that he was inside the municipal house; all he says is that he was
in the municipal house, and this could mean being inside as well as in the basement, in
the hallway or nearby. Also, couldn't it have happened that Carnación, because of the
shock (the Kempei Tai was terrifying, everyone), believed that Vidal hadn't reached a
municipality when the Japanese came? In any case, supposing that there is a
discrepancy here, the same shows us precisely that it is not about test witnesses, since
it would have been easy to agree with mathematical exaltation on this point. all he says
is that he was in the municipal house, and this could mean being inside as well as in the
basement, in the hallway or nearby. Also, couldn't it have happened that Carnación,
because of the shock (the Kempei Tai was terrifying, everyone), believed that Vidal
hadn't reached a municipality when the Japanese came? In any case, supposing that
there is a discrepancy here, the same shows us precisely that it is not about test
witnesses, since it would have been easy to agree with mathematical exaltation on this
point. all he says is that he was in the municipal house, and this could mean being
inside as well as in the basement, in the hallway or nearby. Also, couldn't it have
happened that Carnación, because of the shock (the Kempei Tai was terrifying,
everyone), believed that Vidal hadn't reached a municipality when the Japanese
came? In any case, supposing that there is a discrepancy here, the same shows us
precisely that it is not about test witnesses, since it would have been easy to agree with
mathematical exaltation on this point.

CHARGE NO. 5

"Regarding charge No. 5 — says the appealed judgment — it has been proven by the
testimonies of Ernesto Victa and Felizardo Samot that on January 23, 1944, three
Japanese soldiers from the military police, accompanied by the defendant himself, went
to the house of Ernesto Victa in Kawit Cavite, with the purpose of arresting the father of
said Ernesto, named Epifanio Victa, as in effect they arrested him, his hands tied, they
took him to the Japanese barracks, without until now having been able to have news of
his whereabouts of said Epifanio Victa.

The defense attorney does not question the fact that he was with the Japanese soldiers
of the Kempei Tai when they arrested Epifanio Victa, whose whereabouts, as stated in
the judgment appealed from, is not known until now, and who is practically considered
dead by his relatives. hands in the hands of the military police, but argues that "the
public prosecutor's office did not prove that said arrested person was connected with
the army of the United States or the Commonwealth of the Philippines, or that he was
one of the allies of the United States or the Commonwealth of the Philippines , or that
his arrest had anything to do with or might adversely affect the United States or the
Commonwealth in the war against Japan;" and that "the mere act of arresting an
inhabitant of the Philippines at that time did not constitute an act of treason against the
United States or the Commonwealth of the Philippines." cralaw virtua1aw library

The certainty of the following facts is not disputed: Quepifanio Victa was a guerrilla,
belonging to the organization called Tanib, under the command of Captain Modesto
Dayrit; that, in addition to being an "intelligence officer," Epifanio Victa operated a
sailing vessel together with 3 other individuals named Angel Crucina, Carpio Crucina,
and Teodoro Laguio, to transport weapons, ammunition, and supplies from Bataan and
supply them to the guerrillas in Cavite; that for his activities as a guerrilla Epifanio Victa
was arrested by the Japanese military police on January 23, 1944, appearing among
the elusive and appellant apprehenders Valentin Bagalawis; that since the night of his
arrest nothing has been known of Epifanio's whereabouts, and his relatives and
relatives believe that he was killed by the Japanese; that two weeks after the
aforementioned date of January 23, the three companions of Epifanio named above
were also arrested by the Kempei Tai, once again appearing among the arrestees the
appellant, armed with a revolver and with the usual distinctive band on his arm; that
Angel Crucina was able to escape, but Carpio Crucina died as a result of the torture
inflicted on him, and Teodoro Laguio was in such bad shape, with broken ribs and
bones, that he was unable to appear at the hearing in this case to testify as a
witness. All this has been declared by Ernesto Victa, son of Epifanio, confirmed by
another reliable witness, Felizardo Samot. armed with a revolver and with the usual
distinctive band on his arm; that Angel Crucina was able to escape, but Carpio Crucina
died as a result of the torture inflicted on him, and Teodoro Laguio was in such bad
shape, with broken ribs and bones, that he was unable to appear at the hearing in this
case to testify as a witness. All this has been declared by Ernesto Victa, son of Epifanio,
confirmed by another reliable witness, Felizardo Samot. armed with a revolver and with
the usual distinctive band on his arm; that Angel Crucina was able to escape, but
Carpio Crucina died as a result of the torture inflicted on him, and Teodoro Laguio was
in such bad shape, with broken ribs and bones, that he was unable to appear at the
hearing in this case to testify as a witness. All this has been declared by Ernesto Victa,
son of Epifanio, confirmed by another reliable witness, Felizardo Samot.

La alegacion, por tanto, de que el arresto de EpifanioVicta y de sus tres companeros

nada tenia que ver con la causa de los Estados Unidos o del Commonwealth de Filipinas
en la guerra, o que no podia afectarla adversamente, carece en absoluto de merito. Los
japoneses sabian muy bien lo que hacian cuando por todos los medios imaginables
trataban de suprimir a los guerrilleros, batiendolos tantoen poblado como en los
montes. Es que sabian que losguerrilleros eran el factor mas importante y eficaz en el
movimiento popular de resistencia contra los invasores. Sabian que los guerrilleros, ya
como informadores o miembros del servicio de espionaje, ya como saboteurs o
destructores de zapa, ya como agentes en el aprovisionamiento de armas, municiones y
alimentos, o ya como simples propagandistas para mantener en continua y elevada
tension la moral del pueblo frente al tedio y al cansancio que engendraban el
derrotismo y el depresionismo, no solo minaban los cimientos de la ocupacion, sino que
de hecho preparaban el terreno para la vuelta triunfante de las fuerzas de la
reconquista y liberacion. Es verdad que habia guerrilleros malos, cuyos crimenes
constituyen un baldon en la historia de la resistencia, pero es indudable que la inmensa
mayoria tenia titulos mas que suficientes para merecer bien del pais. Por eso que el
pueblo, con ese certero instinto e intuicion que le caracterizan, ha reconocido y
aclamado presto sus servicios y su ejecutoria; y los gobiernos de Filipinas y de los
Estados Unidos no han sido remisosen remunerarlos materialmente, dandose las
recompensas enla medida de los recursos disponibles. Es mas: el gobierno de Filipinas,
con un realismo plausible, dando color de legalidad a ciertos actos que de otro modo y
bajo la jurisdiccion ordinaria hubieran sido crimenes y transgresiones del codigo penal,
ha expedido Pn decreto general de amnistia para beneficio de aquellos que causaron
muerte o algun otro dañio en la inteligencia y en la fe honrada de que con ello
promovian licitamente la causa de la resistencia. Asi que la ayuda prestada por el
apelante al Kempei Tai en la infortunada captura de Epifanio Victa y compañieros, fue
ayuda y facilidad — aid and comfort — prestadas al enemigo,con el animo de adherirse
al mismo, al tenor del ar-114 de nuestro Codigo Penal Revisado.

The defendant has tried to exculpate himself by declaring in court that at the beginning
of the Japanese occupation the Kempei Tai seized him and detained him for a few days,
mistreating him with punches and blows. Some witnesses have testified in his favor,
saying that they had actually seen him handcuffed in a military police "jitney", with a
bruised face, a sign that he had been slapped. The appellant insinuates that his arrest
was because the Japanese had found out that he was in a relationship with an
American, and perhaps because of this they suspected that he was an
Americanist. According to the defendant, Maria Flores, his American wife, was killed by
the Japanese in late 1944. A son of his named Emmanuel Trinidad Bagalawis Flores was
also killed by the Japanese. No evidence has been presented to refute these facts. What
the defendant implies by these allegations is that he aided the Japanese out of
insurmountable fear and outraged by irresistible force. He also says that the Japanese
forced him to try to say good things about them at all times, that is, to spread the
Japanese cause.

The first thing that jumps out, examining the evidence, is that before the war broke
out, the appellant had been separated from Maria Flores for some time, living with a
guerida. It seems that Maria Flores served in the house of Ramon Araneta. So it is
unlikely that the Japanese suspected that he was an Americanist just because of that
detail of his long-extinct relationship with Maria Flores. Much less can one believe that
this instilled insurmountable fear of serious reprisals from the Japanese, since it would
have been easy for him to dispel any suspicion, especially with his political history as a
Sakdalist, and above all because at that time the supreme chief of the Sakdalists was
already in Manila. , Benigno Ramos, and made very good friends with the Japanese.

It should be noted that, according to the same defendant, Maria Flores was seized by
the Japanese in December 1944, that is, almost on the eve of her release and when the
defendant had been serving as a member of the Japanese military police for some
time. From this it is inferred that the extremely active collaboration of the accused with
the Japanese could not have been the effect of the arrest of his wife, that is, for fear
that the Japanese would complicate him and make him the object of revenge and
reprisals, since this would be equivalent to sustaining an absurdity — that the effect
was born before the cause. And with respect to the fact that the defendant limited
himself to spreading good things about the Japanese, forced by them, the evidence in
the case file denies it, since he did more than spread the word, participating in the
zoning and in the "raids" to capture guerrillas,

The defense, therefore, of duress — insurmountable fear or irresistible force — with

which the accused seeks to exculpate himself, obviously cannot be sustained. The
vague fear that he alleges has no basis in the facts and circumstances of the case, and
it is certainly not the exempting fear that the law speaks of. In the case of Respublica
v. M'Carty, supra, has stated the following: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"... He remained, however, with the British troops for ten or eleven months, during
which he might easily have accomplished his escape; and it must be remembered, that
in the eye of the law, nothing will excuse the act of joining an enemy, but the fear of
immediate death; not the fear of any inferior personal injury nor the apprehension of
any outrage upon property. But had the defendant listed merely from the fear of
famishing, and with a sincere intention to make his escape, the fear could not surely
always continue, nor could his intention remain unexecuted for soa period." (Respublica
v. M'Carty, 2 Dall., 36; 1 Law. ed., 300, 301.)

The defense attorney makes other indications of error, namely: (a) that article 2 of Law
No. 682 that creates the People's Court is an ex post facto legislative provision and,
therefore, null; (b) that consequently said Court lacks jurisdiction to prosecute the
case. Nor are these remarks merited. Citation 2 is as follows:  jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 2. The People's Court shall have jurisdiction to judge and decide all cases of
crimes against national security committed between December 8, 1941 and September
2, 1945, and presented within six months from the approval of this Law: It being
understood, however, that any of such causes notified in this way within said period of
six months will be presented, judged and decided by the corresponding Court of First
Instance; and it being understood, furthermore, that In cases where, in its opinion, the
evidence is not sufficient to sustain the accused, the People's Court may, however,
declare and sentence the accused for any crime included in the acts alleged in the
complaint and established by the evidence. " cralaw virtua1aw library

It is evident that Law No. 682 does not define a new, nor does it even increase the
penalties prescribed by our treason law. The treason prosecuted by the Tribunalueblo is
the same treason defined in article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, no more, no less. No
new elements have been added or removed from the crime. No act is punishable that
was not defined and punished by treason existing at the time said act was
performed. All that the aforementioned Law No. 682 does is form a new court — the
People's Court — to prosecute the treasonous acts carried out during the war with
Japan, provided that the corresponding complaint has been filed within a certain time
limit, maintaining the jurisdiction in the courts of first instance after said limit. The law,
therefore, is of a purely procedural nature; therefore, valid, constitutional. In terms of
procedures, no right is acquired. The judicial machinery, above all, can be reformed or
implemented, and the jurisdiction readjusted, when imperative reasons of convenience
and public interest so advise, without this being considered as ex post facto legislation.

"The Legislature may abolish courts and create new ones, and it may prescribe
altogether different modes of procedure in its discretion, though it cannot lawfully, we
think, in so doing, dispense with any of those substantial protections with which the
existing law surrounds the person accused of crime." (Cooley's Const. Lim. [7th ed. ],
p. 381, quoted approvingly in Thompson V8. Utah, 170 US., 343, 351; 18 Sup. Ct.,
620; 42 Law. ed., 1061, and in Thomps v. Missouri, 171 US, 380; 18 Sup. Ct., 922; 43
Law.ed., 304 People v. Green, 201 NY, 172; 94 NE, 661; Ann. Cas., 1912.884; Welch,
65 Vt., 50; 25 A., 900; Comm. v. Philips, Pick. [Mass. ], 28; State v. Sullivan, 14 Rich.
Law [SC ], 281; Thompson v. Missouri, 171 US, 380; 18 S. Ct., 922; 43 Law. ed., 204;
State v. Vannah, 112 Me., 248; 91 A., 985; State v. Vannah. Wilson103 Lowa,
297; 186 NW, 866.)

Another argument that is adduced in favor of the appellant is that article 114 of our
Revised Penal Code speaks of aid and comfort — aid and comfort — provided to the
enemy and Japan, according to the defense attorney, was not an enemy of the
Philippines, for two reasons: ( 1) because the Philippine Commonwealth had not
declared war against Japan, in accordance with Article VI, section 25, of our
Constitution which states: "The Congress shall, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all
the members of each House, have the sole power to declare war;" (2) because Japan
had not declared war against the Philippines either, but, on the contrary, the
Commander of the Japanese forces issued a proclamation on January 3, 1942 stating
that "Japan and the Philippines were friends and not enemies.

The strength of this argument - correctly answers the Attorney General - lies in a
mistaken interpretation of the cited article of the Constitution on the declaration of war:
it is obvious that this article was inserted in the Constitution not for the
Commonwealth, but for the Republic after the proclamation of the independence at the
end of the 10-year transitional period. Although the Commonwealth was a semi-
sovereign state — according to our constitution, sovereignty resides with the people —
that sovereignty was conditioned by the terms of the Independence Act to the effect
that the Commonwealth, in its foreign relations, between these the question naturally
of the war, was subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Government of the United
States. Thus America's declaration of war against Japan virtually included the
Commonwealth. And the best and most eloquent proof of this is that when Japan
invaded our territory, our soldiers — the Commonwealth soldiers — defended side by
side with the only American federals and Filipino "scouts" — all the invaded from
Lingayen to Davao, beating forces vastly superior in numbers and enaments. And when
for strategic reasons the Filipino-American forces had to withdraw to the Bataan
peninsula, there, in its fields and in its jungles, the fledgling army of the
Commonwealth became battle-hardened and veteran overnight, jointly defending with
the American army a common cause against a common enemy, and covering himself
with glory with his heroism even in the midst of inevitable defeat. And when, defeated
and defeated, our soldiers had to be taken to the concentration camps in Tarlac, once
again they joined the federal soldiers undertaking that tragic journey — the day of
death, the horrifying "death March" — dying together at thousands, some on the side of
the apocalyptic road, others the most in concentration camps, victims of hunger, plague
and torture. This is not a novel, it is not fiction. It is history — true history. — Dying
together by the thousands, some on the side of the apocalyptic road, others the greater
number in concentration camps, victims of hunger, plague and torture. This is not a
novel, it is not fiction. It is history — true history. — Dying together by the thousands,
some on the side of the apocalyptic road, others the greater number in concentration
camps, victims of hunger, plague and torture. This is not a novel, it is not fiction. It is
history — true history.

And everything does not end here. After the official surrender, the will to resist against
the invaders was not totally broken. This is how the popular resistance movement was
organized underground, with the moral and material support of the people. So the
guerrilla warfare continued, with ambushes. Thus, clandestine sabotage work was
undertaken against the enemy, the espionage and information service against it, the
propaganda of the allied cause by word of mouth, the clandestine leaflet, the extremely
dangerous hearing of radio broadcasts, etc., etc. . That is why it had to sound
ridiculous, hypocritical, pompous proclamation by the Commander of the occupying
forces saying that "Japan and the Philippines were not enemies, but friends." The
fallacy of this friendship, certainly never solicited, It was demonstrated in the frenzy
and insanity of the Japanese soldiers and sailors who killed men, women, old, young,
and even children, rabid and suspicious that in each Filipino there was lurking a
probable guerrilla. And — by the way — the circumstance that some ill-advised
Filipinos, fortunately few, among them the appellant, have betrayed their country by
joining and helping the enemy in the way they helped, either by enlisting in his armed
forces, or by serving in The Kempei Tai, whether as spies or informers, in no way
tarnishes the magnificent history of Philippine resistance against the invading
hordes. furious and suspicious that in each Filipino there was a probable guerrilla
lurking. And — by the way — the circumstance that some ill-advised Filipinos,
fortunately few, among them the appellant, have betrayed their country by joining and
helping the enemy in the way they helped, either by enlisting in his armed forces, or by
serving in The Kempei Tai, whether as spies or informers, in no way tarnishes the
magnificent history of Philippine resistance against the invading hordes. furious and
suspicious that in each Filipino there was a probable guerrilla lurking. And — by the way
— the circumstance that some ill-advised Filipinos, fortunately few, among them the
appellant, have betrayed their country by joining and helping the enemy in the way
they helped, either by enlisting in his armed forces, or by serving in The Kempei Tai,
whether as spies or informers, in no way tarnishes the magnificent history of Philippine
resistance against the invading hordes.

The appellant also invokes, to exculpate himself, the so-called "suspended allegiance"
theory — suspended loyalty — that is, that during the occupation the crime of treason
could not be committed, because the citizen's loyalty to his government was
temporarily suspended from the moment in which said government, due to the defeat
of its weapons, was unable to continue protecting the inhabitants against the pressure
of the occupying enemy. The so-called theory of the change of sovereignty is also
invoked, that is, that the proclamation of . independence and the establishment of the
republic in place of the Commonwealth which was subject to American sovereignty, has
had the effect of liquidating all cases of treason committed during the Japanese
occupation. Having ruled negatively on these two points in the case of Laurel v. Misa, L-
409, We resolve them in the same way in the present cause, referring to the doctrines
established in the aforementioned cause, of Laurel against Misa. International law
protects the conscience of the vanquished by prohibiting the occupier from taking an
oath of loyalty until the fate of the war has been definitively decided. The only possible
logical inference from this is that international law cannot be invoked to excuse
treason; that this corresponds entirely to municipal law; that the moral and legal link
between the citizen and his government is not severed, even if said government is
temporarily displaced; that international law does not conflict with natural law; that the
only justifications and exemptions applicable to the crime of treason are also those
applicable to ordinary crimes; that the circumstances of each case must be assessed
with broad criteria, depending on a healthy judicial statehood to discern well the non-
culpable collaboration of the genuine and typical cases of treason; under the theory of
suspended loyalty, everyone can be exonerated, even the criminals; that during the
enemy occupation there were undoubtedly certain types of public and private service
that were not only not guilty, but even meritorious, and that, in order to be established
and recognized morally and judicially, does not require the application of a theory, such
as that of " suspended allegiance" is so radical, so comprehensive, that it places
honorable and decent men, crooks, scoundrels, and rogues on an equal
footing. depending on a healthy judicial statism, to discern well the non-culpable
collaboration of the genuine and typical cases of treason; under the theory of
suspended loyalty, everyone can be exonerated, even the criminals; that during the
enemy occupation there were undoubtedly certain types of public and private service
that were not only not guilty, but even meritorious, and that, in order to be established
and recognized morally and judicially, does not require the application of a theory, such
as that of " suspended allegiance" is so radical, so comprehensive, that it places
honorable and decent men, crooks, scoundrels, and rogues on an equal
footing. depending on a healthy judicial statism, to discern well the non-culpable
collaboration of the genuine and typical cases of treason; under the theory of
suspended loyalty, everyone can be exonerated, even the criminals; that during the
enemy occupation there were undoubtedly certain types of public and private service
that were not only not guilty, but even meritorious, and that, in order to be established
and recognized morally and judicially, does not require the application of a theory, such
as that of " suspended allegiance" is so radical, so comprehensive, that it places
honorable and decent men, crooks, scoundrels, and rogues on an equal footing.
In conclusion, we find that the appellant is guilty of the charges found proven by the
lower court, although we believe that under all the circumstances the sentence should
be reduced to life imprisonment . With this single modification, the judgment appealed
from is confirmed in everything else. With the costs borne by the appellant. So it is
ordered.

Moran, Pres., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Padilla, and Tauson, MM., agree.

Separate Opinions

PARAS, J. , concurring:  chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur partially in the result. The appellant is not only responsible, jointly with others,
for the apprehension and murder of Epifanio Victa, but also guilty of other atrocities and
espionage.

I reserve my vote on the question of suspended allegiance and change of sovereignty,

because the decision in Laurel v. Misa, GR No. L-409, relied upon by the majority, has
not as yet become final.