G.R. No. L-4618 - People vs. Golez

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4618)

Factual Background (Three Treason Counts)

Under count 3, the information alleged that in June 1944, together with Juanito Diaz, a Japanese spy, the accused arrested Mrs. Mary Estella Gay and her sister Emilia Young, took them to the Kempeitai, and charged them with aiding the guerrillas. Mrs. Gay testified that she had met the accused in the mountains while they were with the guerrillas and that she sometimes talked with him. She stated that at about 9:00 a.m. on June 30, 1944, while she and her sister were in the market of Bacolod City, they were apprehended by the accused, accompanied by Juanito Diaz, and loaded onto a calesa to be taken to the Kempeitai. She testified that, after being brought there, she was investigated and tortured by a Japanese, allegedly upon the accused’s assurance that she was connected with the guerrillas. She further stated that a priest later intervened and secured their release later in the day. The prosecution also presented Dominador Gravino, who testified that he was present when Mrs. Gay and her sister were apprehended and loaded onto the calesa for the Kempeitai.

Under count 4, the accused was charged, together with Juanito Diaz, with arresting Filomeno Gino-o one night in June 1944, and accusing him before the Kempeitai as a mechanic for the guerrilla forces in the mountains, for which reason Filomeno Gino-o was investigated and maltreated. The evidence consisted of the testimonies of Filomeno Gino-o and his wife, Felipa de Gino-o. Filomeno testified that on the night in question the accused, with Juanito Diaz, fetched him from the house of Fulgencio Villacampa in Bacolod where he was staying, tied his hands, took him to the Japanese garrison, and delivered him to the Japanese while accusing him of being a mechanic and weapon-repairer for the guerrillas. He testified that to make him confess, the Japanese tortured him until Donato Zamudio interceded and obtained his release. Filomeno testified that he had known the accused before the war and that he sometimes saw him in the Japanese headquarters. Felipa corroborated the arrest at Fulgencio Villacampa’s house and added that after her husband was released and she changed his shirt, she saw contusions on his body.

Under count 7, the accused was charged with having on November 6, 1944, together with two other Japanese spies, led a Kempeitai officer to Talisay, Occidental Negros, where he caused the arrest of the guerrilla Manuel Chua. Manuel Chua was reportedly taken to the Kempeitai office, detained until midnight, and then was never again seen or heard from. The prosecution presented several witnesses. Vicente de la Cruz, a merchant of Talisay, testified that at about 2:00 p.m. on March 5, 1944, he saw the accused arrive in a car with other spies and a Japanese sergeant. He stated that the accused and his Filipino companions apprehended Manuel Chua at the entrance of Jose Coswanko’s carenderia, took him to the garrison, and that afterward Manuel Chua was never seen again. He testified that Manuel Chua was a member of the intelligence division of the guerrillas and that the accused, though formerly attached to the guerrillas, had become a Japanese spy after capture. Jose Coswanko corroborated the arrest. In addition, Higino Lopez testified that while he was detained by the Japanese in the municipal jail of Talisay, he saw Manuel Chua and four others tied pass by accompanied by the accused, Filipinos, and Japanese, all armed. Finally, Enrique Chua, Manuel’s brother, testified that after learning that Manuel had been apprehended and had not returned, he inquired and was informed that Manuel was one of those arrested by the Japanese in Caba-cahwan near the Bacolod-Murcia Central. With the help of an informant, he said he was able to locate the burial site and recover Manuel’s remains.

Trial Court’s Assessment of the Evidence and Credibility

After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the charges in the three counts were established by the required number of witnesses. The Court acknowledged the defense claim that the prosecution witnesses did not completely corroborate each point on all details. The Court held, however, that it was sufficient that the testimonies agreed on the overt acts of treason committed by the accused through his active participation in the arrest of persons connected with the guerrillas. The Court treated such agreement as compliance with the two-witness rule, citing People vs. Francisco Concepcion, 84 Phil. 787; 47 Off. Gaz., 1812.

On the defense denial that he took part in the arrests, the Court noted that the defense instead imputed the apprehensions in counts 3 and 4 to Juanito Diaz. The Court treated the controversy as one of credibility and held that there was no basis to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. It observed that the accused did not identify any motive that could have induced the accusers to testify falsely. The Court also rejected the accused’s claim that his alleged guerrilla connection should excuse his conduct. It held that even if the accused had been a guerrilla at one point, that fact did not preclude the inference that he later became a tool of the Japanese. The Court cited People vs. Atilares, 90 Phil. 868, stating that one’s connection with the guerrilla movement is “no legal excuse for treasonable activities.”

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The accused maintained that he did not participate in the arrests described in counts 3 and 4 and argued that the apprehension of the victims named in those counts should be attributed to Juanito Diaz. He likewise relied on the assertion that he may have been a guerrilla, implying that such background should affect the assessment of treasonable participation. The prosecution, through the trial court’s findings and the position adopted by the Solicitor-General, maintained that the accused’s overt acts as alleged in the information were sufficiently proven and that the proper penalty should follow the statutory structure for treason in the absence of circumstances that would adjust the degree of penalty.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Liability

The Court’s reasoning anchored liability on proof of treasonable overt acts through active participation in arrests and the associated acts of investigation and maltreatment. The Court emphasized that what mattered for the two-witness rule was not perfect corroboration on every detail, but concordance on the material overt acts showing participation in treason. It applied that principle to the testimony of Mrs. Gay and Dominador Gravino for count 3, to the testimony of Filomeno Gino-o and Felipa de Gino-o for count 4, and to the multiple corroborating witnesses for count 7, including Jose Coswanko and the witnesses who described the subsequent disappearance and recovery of Manuel Chua’s remains.

The Court further supported its factual and legal conclusions by treating

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-4618)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Romeo Golez for treason in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
The trial court convicted the accused on three counts (counts 8, 4, and 7) and imposed reclusion temporal for twenty years, a fine of P10,000, accessory penalties, and costs.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court because the penalty to be imposed would be life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary sufficiency and the proper penalty level for the three treason counts.

Key Factual Allegations

The accused was a Filipino citizen who, during the early part of the last war, worked for the guerrillas in the mountains of Negros.
The accused later went to Bacolod City, where he was captured by the Japanese.
After capture, the prosecution alleged that the accused collaborated with the Japanese and performed the overt acts of treason charged in the information.

Count 3 — Arrest of Mary Estella Gay

The prosecution alleged that in June 1944, the accused, together with Juanito Diaz, arrested Mrs. Mary Estella Gay and her sister Emilia Young.
The prosecution alleged that the accused and Diaz took the sisters to the Kempeitai and charged them with aiding the guerrillas, which led to their investigation, maltreatment, and detention for one day.
Mrs. Mary Estella Gay testified that she knew the accused from earlier guerrilla encounters in the mountains and that she sometimes spoke with him.
She testified that at about 9 o’clock in the morning of June 30, 1944, while she and her sister were in the Bacolod City market, the accused apprehended them.
She testified that the accused was then accompanied by Juanito Diaz, described as a Japanese spy.
She testified that they were loaded on a calesa and taken to the Japanese Kempeitai.
She testified that at the Kempeitai she was investigated and tortured by a Japanese upon the assurance given by the accused that she was connected with the guerrillas.
She testified that a priest later secured their release later in the day.
Dominador Gravino corroborated the arrest narrative by testifying that he was present when Mrs. Gay and her sister were apprehended and loaded to be taken to the Kempeitai.

Count 4 — Arrest of Filomeno Gino-o

The prosecution alleged that in June 1944, the accused, with Juanito Diaz, arrested Filomeno Gino-o one night.
The prosecution alleged that the accused accused Gino-o before the Kempeitai as a mechanic for the guerrilla forces in the mountains.
The prosecution alleged that because of this accusation, Gino-o was investigated and maltreated.
The evidence for this count included the testimony of Filomeno Gino-o and Felipa de Gino-o, his wife.
Filomeno testified that on the night in question the accused, in company with Juanito Diaz, fetched him from the house of Fulgencio Villacampa in Bacolod.
Filomeno testified that the accused tied his hands and took him to the Japanese garrison, where he was delivered to the Japanese and accused as a guerrilla mechanic and weapon-repairer.
He testified that he was tortured by the Japanese until Donato Zamudio interceded and obtained his release.
He testified that he had known the accused before the war and had sometimes seen him in Japanese headquarters.
Felipa corroborated that the arrest occurred at the house of Fulgencio Villacampa.
Felipa testified that after her husband’s release, she saw contusions on his body when she changed his shirt.

Count 7 — Arrest and Disappearance of Manuel Chua

The prosecution alleged that on November 6, 1944, the accused, with two other Japanese spies, led a Japanese Kempeitai officer to Talisay, Occidental Negros.
The prosecution alleged that the accused arrested or caused the arrest of a guerrilla named Manuel Chua.
The prosecution alleged that Manuel Chua was taken to the Kempeitai office and detained until midnight.
The prosecution alleged that Manuel Chua was never seen or heard from thereafter.
Vicente de la Cruz, a merchant in Talisay