G.R. No. 114829 - Gamido y Buenaventura vs. New Bilibid Prisons Officials

Maria A. Saquitang testified that on September 6, 1944, her brother Antonio Azarraga was seen at the Central Hotel at 7:00 p.m. by her, and the next evening at 8:00 p.m. she and her husband went to the hotel to deliver money for his release.
At the hotel, she observed Antonio bleeding with his hands and feet tied. She identified the accused by noting a distinct mole and scar below his left eye.
The witness stated that three men – later identified as Pedring, Pazing, and Romy (the accused) – were involved in his arrest.
Subsequent to the initial interactions, Jose Paza, one of the accomplices, promised the release of Antonio in exchange for money, and later threatened the witness to sign a receipt indicating the return of the money, which did not occur.

Trinidad Azarraga testified regarding the arrest of her husband, Antonio Azarraga, at his residence on September 6, 1944, by three unidentified men, one of whom was later identified as the accused.
Trinidad further identified the accused through the mole and scar mark below his left eye.
Cirilo Custodio, while in his office, was approached by three men at approximately 10:00 a.m. on October 6, 1944, who identified themselves as members of the Japanese Kempei-Tai. Among them was the accused.
Cirilo was subsequently taken first to the Far Eastern University and then to the Rizal Restaurant where a discussion was held with Danding Gonzales regarding his possible release in exchange for a sum of money.
Eligio Custodio and Jose Custodio provided corroborative accounts indicating that the accused was present during the arrest and subsequent handling of detained individuals, and that money exchanges (e.g., P2,000.00) were involved in securing their release.

Vicente Gama and Leodegario Scarlet testified about the accused’s frequent presence in the Central Hotel and Rizal Restaurant during the Japanese occupation, where he mingled with Japanese spies and members of a buy-and-sell group.
The accused was seen associating with known Japanese spies, including Danding Gonzales, Pazing, and others.
Testimonies indicated that he was involved in the logistics and transportation of money and goods, notably serving as the driver of a dokar used in the arrest and transfer of detainees.
Evidence presented in Exhibit A and Exhibit B detailed the accused’s personal characteristics (e.g., height, weight, and distinctive facial markings) and his claim to have functioned as a Japanese spy from August to October 1944.

The accused admitted to being present during the arrest operations but claimed his role was limited to that of a driver compelled to transport detainees and money.
He testified that he was employed by Macario Bing, a known figure among the group of Japanese spies, and insisted his participation was a result of coercion.
Exhibit B, a document typewritten by Lt. Rufino Lim Cullough, contained a written statement by the accused detailing his alleged activities as a spy, including his involvement in the transportation of funds and interaction with various Japanese operatives.
Additional documentary evidence (Exhibit A, the appointment of Antonio R. as captain) provided contextual support on the operational environment during the Japanese occupation and the organizational structure within which these arrests and espionage activities occurred.

Whether the accused, identified as Romeo Apostol, actively participated in the arrest of guerrilla supporters such as Antonio Azarraga and Cirilo Custodio.
The extent to which his role, including handling money and being present at key moments, implicates him in aiding enemy operations.

Whether acting as a driver and messenger for a group of Japanese spies constitutes sufficient participation in enemy-aiding activities under the law.
The significance of his documented association with recognized Japanese spies like Danding Gonzales, Pazing, and others.

Whether the physical identifiers (mole and scar) provided by multiple witnesses reliably establish the identity of the accused.
The credibility of testimonies regarding the monetary transactions (e.g., the P8,000.00 and P2,000.00) and their linkage to the accused’s actions.

Whether Exhibit B and the accused’s own testimony can be reconciled with the substantial corroborative evidence provided by the prosecution.
If discrepancies in the accused’s testimony (regarding his claim of mere participation as a driver under coercion) mitigate his liability for treason.

Whether the accused’s actions, even if allegedly minor, satisfy the legal threshold for “aiding and giving comfort to the enemy” as required under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.
The legal principle as to whether any act—direct or indirect—that assists enemy operations during an occupation qualifies for the charge of treason.