Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Adriano Buela, G.R. No. L-1163, December 11, 1947, the Supreme Court, Moran, C.J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is The People of the Philippines; the defendant-appellant is Adriano Buela.
About August 1944 the Japanese military took over the industrial plant of the National Coconut Corporation (Nacoco) in Sariaya, Tayabas, and restricted employment there to members of the Ganap Party, recognizable by identification signed by Benigno Ramos; the organization at the plant came to be known as the Nacoco Garrison. Several witnesses testified that Adriano Buela worked at the plant until March 1945 and, on numerous occasions, was seen bearing arms in the company of Japanese soldiers in Sariaya and the barrio of Mamala.
In January 1945 the Nacoco Garrison, including the accused, evacuated to Mamala where, together with Japanese soldiers, they commandeered houses for habitation and confiscated foodstuffs; witnesses testified that Buela willfully participated in these seizures. On the night of February 21, 1945, witnesses saw Buela, armed and accompanied by fellow members and Japanese soldiers, march two prisoners—Hilarion de Villa and Quirico Delica—whose hands were tied; the two prisoners thereafter disappeared. In March 1945 at Bucal, Sariaya, Buela and other members, armed and led by a Japanese, seized 15 sacks of palay concealed in Francisco Comargo's house; Lucio Gutierrez and Comargo were forced to measure the sacks which were then carried to the garrison. With the approach of American forces, the Japanese and their collaborators retreated to the mountains, and Buela went with them, an act he admitted in a sworn statement and at trial.
The People prosecuted Buela for treason. The First Division of the People's Court convicted him of treason, findin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to establish that Adriano Buela committed treason — i.e., that he adhered to the enemy and willfully gave them aid and comfort — in conformity with the two-witness rule?
- Was the sentence and its mitigating circumstance properly determine...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)