Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2482)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Gorgonio Ponce, G.R. No. L-2482. January 31, 1950, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court.
The criminal prosecution below was instituted by the People of the Philippines against Gorgonio Ponce alias Gregorio Ponce (defendant and appellant) on five counts of treason. The People's Court found the defendant guilty on all counts and imposed sentences of reclusion perpetua together with a fine of P10,000 and costs.
The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses who testified to two groups of violent raids that occurred on November 9 and November 11, 1944, in barrio Tayud, municipality of Liloan, province of Cebu. Witnesses described parties composed of Japanese soldiers accompanied by Filipino "undercovers" including the accused and two named companions (Miguel Maglasang and Ben Valencia). The testimony recounted seizures, binding and blindfolding of alleged suspects, summary executions (many inflicted with scythes or bayonets), and the burning of a house; several victims were identified by name and said to have been killed or to have disappeared thereafter. Multiple witnesses placed the accused actively slashing or otherwise participating in killings, binding prisoners, or directing interrogations aimed at finding guerrilla members.
The accused testified in his own defense, asserting that he had been a prisoner of the Japanese at the time of the raids, was bound and mistreated, and had been used as a guerrilla runner earlier; he displayed alleged marks of violence. The trial court disbelieved the defense and credited the prosecution witnesses’ accounts, resulting in conviction and the sentences above.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the principal questions were the credibility of the witnesses and the proper penalty. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, found no error in the trial court's factual findings, but took note of the accused's testimony regarding his age: based on his statement he was twenty years of age about January 3, 1948, which meant he was below 18 at the time o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction supported by credible and sufficient evidence?
- Was the accused entitled to a reduced penalty because he was below eighteen years of age at the time of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)