Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1553)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Francisco Concepcion, G.R. No. L-1553, October 25, 1949, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, J., writing for the Court.The People of the Philippines (plaintiff and appellee) prosecuted Francisco Concepcion (defendant and appellant) for treason before the People’s Court. The trial court found Concepcion guilty on three counts of treason, imposed life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of P10,000 and costs. The overt acts charged were the apprehensions in Cebu City of three persons alleged to be connected with guerrillas: (1) Basilio Severino on December 7, 1944 (Count 3); (2) Clemente Chica on December 3, 1944 (Count 5); and (3) Gavino Moras on January 9, 1944 (referred to in the record as Count 6). The proofs showed the arrests were effected either by the appellant or at his instigation, often in the company of Japanese soldiers and, in some instances, local collaborators.
On appeal, counsel for Concepcion assigned several errors. He argued the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to reopen its case to introduce evidence of the appellant’s Filipino citizenship after the prosecution rested and after a defense motion for dismissal. He also contended that the convictions failed the two-witness rule required in treason prosecutions because crucial details were not corroborated between prosecution witnesses, and that the evidence showed appellant merely waited below a house while Japanese soldiers effected an arrest. Further, appellant claimed duress — that as an ex-USAFFE officer he joined the Japanese under coercion — and presented a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: affidavits by two Japanese war prisoners asserting appellant was a liaison officer, affidavits of three alleged retracting witnesses, and assertions that appellant had saved some Filipinos arrested by the Japanese.
The Sup...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in reopening the prosecution’s case to receive evidence of the appellant’s Filipino citizenship after the prosecution had rested and the defense had moved for dismissal?
- Were the convictions for treason properly proven under the two-witness rule and the requirement of proof of an overt act?
- Was the claim that the appellant acted under duress (having joined the Japanese under coercion) sufficient to negate criminal liability?
- Did the affidavits and other materials presented...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)