Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2235)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2235)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Urbano Marasigan, G.R. No. L-2235, January 31, 1950, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is The People of the Philippines; the defendant-appellant is Urbano Marasigan.Marasigan was charged in four counts with treason in the People’s Court but was convicted only on Count A and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and a fine of P10,000 plus costs. He appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court. The People’s Court based its conviction largely on eyewitness testimony and circumstances showing that Marasigan acted with and for the enemy.
The facts as found by the trial court and reviewed by the Court are: Marasigan, a Filipino, was a member of the Japanese Military Police in Sariaya, Tayabas, often seen in a Japanese uniform, armed with a rifle, and accompanying Japanese patrols and raiding parties. On January 21, 1945, a Japanese raiding party, composed of Japanese soldiers and Filipinos of the Japanese Military Police including the appellant, surrounded and entered the house of Macario (one of two brothers who were guerrilla messengers). Marasigan, in uniform and with a rifle, summoned the male inmates, questioned Macario and, after sending him to the Japanese captain, joined the party that proceeded to the house of Nicasio Siores and took Nicasio’s sons Maximo and Macario toward the mountains; the two brothers were never heard from again.
About a month later, Hilariona Liwag testified that she heard someone proclaim in a loud voice that the husband was already dead and, looking out, saw Marasigan. At trial Marasigan admitted his Filipino citizenship but denied participation: he claimed he had been arrested by the Japanese on January 18, 1945, confined, and escaped only in the first days of March; he offered an alibi and asserted that Nicasio Siores had a motive to falsely accuse him because of a domestic quarrel and courtship of Marasigan’s wife by Nicasio.
The People’s Court rejected the defense explanation, found the prosecution witnesses more credible, and noted indicia of witness-tampering and attempted bribery by Marasigan’s relatives (his wife asking a witness not to testify and his father and an accomplice offering money to compromise the matter). The appellate review by the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt on Count A but observed the absence of proof that Marasigan participated in killing, torture, or other abuse of the two brothers.
Acting on defense counsel’s plea for leniency and finding the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction (Marasigan could neither read nor write English and had minimal schooling), the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal and a fine of P5,000, and otherwise affirmed the People’s Court decision, with costs against the appellant.
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict Urbano Marasigan of treason beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction warrant a reduction of the penalty?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)