Title
People vs. Marcelo Alatiit
Case
G.R. No. L-2322
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1950
Marcelo Alatiit, a Makapili member, aided Japanese forces in arresting suspected guerrillas during WWII, leading to his treason conviction and life imprisonment.

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-04-1867)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

During the Japanese occupation, a branch of the Makapili organization was active in Binan, Laguna. Marcelo Alatiit, a Filipino citizen and alleged member—and even captain—of the subversive Makapili group, was seen patrolling with armed Japanese soldiers. On June 20, 1943, at about 9:00 p.m., Japanese soldiers accompanied by Filipino collaborators, including Alatiit, went to the residence of Angeles Vicentina in barrio Malaban, Binan, to inquire about the location of Gregorio Corrales. Upon being directed, the group arrested Corrales, and similarly apprehended Macario Alzona and Juan Romero in separate incidents. These individuals, suspected guerrilla sympathizers, were subsequently turned over to Japanese military authorities and confined for several days. Later, in mid-November 1943 at around 2:00 a.m., Japanese soldiers, accompanied by Alatiit and Matias Almazan, raided the house of Felipe Capili in barrio Malaban, resulting in the arrest of Capili, Valentin Belmonte, and Belmonte’s two sons. The captives, whose testimony came from Angeles Vicentina, Valentin Belmonte, and Felipe Capili, confirmed that Alatiit was among those conducting the apprehensions. In contrast, Alatiit denied any connection with the Makapili, contending that he was merely a bystander during the arrests, and even produced witnesses stating there was no Makapili organization in town. However, the trial court found these defenses unmeritorious, relying on the testimony of at least seven witnesses who attested to his active participation while on patrol with armed personnel.

Issues:

  • Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Marcelo Alatiit was an active member of the Makapili organization, particularly in light of his denial and claim of being a mere bystander during the arrests.
  • Whether the application of the two-witness rule in cases involving serious offenses such as treason was properly satisfied by the testimonies presented against him.
  • Whether the trial court’s findings, which relied on the corroborative evidence provided by both eyewitnesses and the arrested suspects, warrant an affirmation of his conviction for treason on three counts.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.