Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4618)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Romeo Golez, G.R. No. L-4618, March 28, 1952, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Romeo Golez, a Filipino citizen, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros for treason on three counts (identified in the record as counts 8, 4, and 7) and sentenced to 20 years reclusion temporal, a fine of P10,000, accessory penalties and costs. He appealed to the Court of Appeals; that tribunal, however, certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that the penalty to be imposed might be life imprisonment.
The information charged Golez with several overt acts of collaboration with the Japanese occupying forces. The proof was presented count by count. Under the count labeled in the report as "Count 3" (one of the three counts affirmed by the trial court), prosecution witnesses, including Mrs. Mary Estella Gay and Dominador Gravino, testified that in late June 1944 the accused, together with Juanito Diaz (described as a Japanese spy), apprehended Mrs. Gay and her sister in the Bacolod market and took them to the Kempeitai where they were investigated, maltreated and detained for a day.
Under the count labeled "Count 4," Filomeno Gino-o and his wife Felipa recounted that in June 1944 the accused and Juanito Diaz fetched Filomeno from a house in Bacolod, bound his hands, delivered him to the Japanese garrison accusing him of being a guerrilla mechanic, and that he was thereafter investigated and maltreated until released after intercession.
Under "Count 7," witnesses Vicente de la Cruz, Jose Coswanko, Higino Lopez and Enrique Chua testified that on November 6, 1944 the accused, in company with Filipino and Japanese companions, led a Japanese Kempeitai officer to Talisay, arrested guerrilla intelligence member Manuel Chua, who was detained and later not seen; Enrique Chua aided in recovering Manuel Chua’s remains.
The trial court found that the prosecution had proved the three counts by the required number of witnesses and convicted Golez. On appeal the accused contested participation in the arrests and relied on p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt that Romeo Golez committed the treasonous acts charged in the three counts?
- Did the evidence satisfy the statutory/two-witness rule applicable to treason prosecutions?
- Does the accused’s prior service with the guerrillas excuse or mitigate criminal liability for subsequent cooperation with the Japanese?
- What is the proper penalty for the conviction — should the pris...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)