People vs Escleto 84 Phil 121

Crime: Treason, two-witness rule

Facts:

The appellant, Filemon Escleto, was charged in the People’s Cpurt with
treason on three counts.
First, he joined the Imperial Japanese Forces, going out with them in
patrols in search of guerilla and guerilla hideouts and of persons
aiding them; bearing arms against the American and guerilla forces;
and mounting huard and performing guard duty for the Japanese forces.
Second, he joined and went out on patrols with Japanese soldiers in
and around the municipality of Lopez, Province of Tayabas, in search
for guerillas and guerilla hideouts, and of persons aiding or in
symphaty with the resistance movement in the Philippines.
Third, he arrested or caused to be arrested one Antonio Conducto as a
guerilla and did turn him over and deliver to the Japanese military
authorities in their garrison and the Conducto since then vanished.
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish strong
evidence for counts 1 and 2 by not providing any true overt act of
treason. No two witnesses coincided in any specific acts of the
defendant. Yet, the People’s Court believed that the same evidence is
sufficient to prove beyond question defendant’s adherence to the
enemy.
As per the third count, the court decided that it had been fully
substantiated. One of the witnesses, Sinforosa Mortero, mother of
Antonio, testified that the Japanese ordered her and the rest of her
family to go to the town. In front of Escleto’s house, they told them
to stop and he wrote their names. After that, Escleto conducted them
to PC garrison, and she was questioned by a man she did not know if
she heard gunshots and she said yes. The next day, they were allowed
to go home but Antonio was not released, and from that day, he was
vanished.
As per the wife of Antonio, Patricia, her testimony stated that before
reaching town, they were stopped by Escleto, wrote their names, and
took them to the PC garrison. Then they were allowed to go home except
for Antonio as Escleto presented him to a PC by saying “This is
Antonio Conducto who has a firearm”. They went upstirs, and no news
for Antonio was then heard from that day.
Issue:
Whether or not the testimonies of the two witnesses constitute
treason.

Ruling:
NO. The only point in agreement of Sinforosa and Patricia’s testimony
is that Escleto took down the names of Conducto and the other
witnesses. The statement does not warrant the interference that the
appellant betrayed Conducto or had intention of doing so. In short,
Escleto’s making note of persons who went to the poblacion as evidence
of overt act is weak, vague and uncertain.
The only evidence applicable is the statement of Patricia wherein
Escleto presented Antonio to a Philippine Constabulary and said he has
a firearm. However, this was not elaborated in the prosecution and no
other witness has testified the allegation as per two-witness rule.
The decision of the People’s Court is reversed, Escleto is not guilty
of treason.