Case Summary (G.R. No. L-869)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Decision date: February 9, 1948.
Applicable constitutional framework: 1935 Philippine Constitution (the constitution in force at the time of the decision).
Offense charged: Treason.
Sentence: Fifteen years reclusion temporal, fine of P2,000, and costs. Mitigating circumstance considered by trial court: lack of instruction.
Procedural Posture and Charge
The accused was tried, found guilty of treason, and sentenced as above. He appealed from the judgment. The prosecution advanced two counts (the decision treats the second count as the principal basis for conviction). The trial court applied a mitigating circumstance (lack of instruction) when imposing sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on the record before it.
Core Factual Findings
The Court accepted that, from June 1942 to March 1945, the accused was employed in the Public Opinion Office in Dumaguete, an organization headed by Teodorico Lajato whose stated purpose was gathering information for the Japanese Army about guerrilla movements and activities. Witnesses placed the appellant frequently in the organization’s office and observed him going around Dumaguete and surrounding areas, gathering and reporting information to Lajato or to Major Soledad, the Chief of Police. The accused admitted being a native-born Filipino and admitted employment as a provincial guard and working in the Public Opinion Office in 1943, but denied being an informer and denied specific participatory acts in certain arrests.
Evidentiary Issue: Application of the Two-Witness Rule
The Court addressed the statutory two-witness rule governing treason prosecutions. Although multiple witnesses corroborated the appellant’s frequent presence at the Public Opinion Office and his general activities, the Court found that the evidence as to many of those general activities failed the two-witness requirement insofar as no single overt act was testified to by two witnesses on the same occasion. Thus, while collective testimony established adherence to the enemy in general terms and these activities could be considered as corroborative, the two-witness rule precluded treating every generalized activity as independently sufficient to prove treason.
Overt Act Requirement and the Arrest of Calubiran and Chan
The Court identified an overt act that satisfied the two-witness rule: the arrest of Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan on 28 March 1943. Four witnesses (Alejandro Lazola, Antonio Chan, Alfonso Calubiran, and Pedro Gadiani) testified to the appellant’s important participation in that arrest. The arrest was instigated by the appellant’s report to the Chief of Police that he suspected the two men of being in league with the guerrillas; pursuant to the Chief’s order, the appellant and others proceeded to barrio Ubos, apprehended the men, imprisoned and investigated them (with ill-treatment alleged during the eight days of detention), and later released them. The Court treated this arrest as an overt act that gave aid and comfort to the enemy because the arrested men were shown to be guerrilla runners engaged in procuring supplies and reporting guerrilla observations and strength to guerrilla/USAFFE officers. The conjunction of the appellant’s adherence to the enemy (as evidenced by his office and activities) and his instrumental role in the arrest rendered that specific act treasonous.
Arrest of Angeles Catan — Insufficiency to Constitute Treason
By contrast, the Court found the appellant’s participation in the October 1944 apprehension of Angeles Catan insufficient to establish treason. The evidence did not disclose a treasonous motive or consequence for that arrest: witnesses indicated Catan was released or returned the next day, and some testimony indicated Catan later died after the arrival of the Americans. The appellant himself testified that Catan was a trusted undercover man of Lajato. Given these circumstances and lack of proof that the arrest aided the enemy, the Court declined to treat that apprehension as an overt act of treason.
Legal Reasoning and Conclusion
The
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-869)
Caption, Parties, and Procedural Posture
- The case is entitled "The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. Pastor Tan Mateo (alias Nene Tan Mateo), Defendant and Appellant," reported at 80 Phil. 211, G.R. No. L-869, decided February 9, 1948.
- The People of the Philippines prosecuted; Pastor Tan Mateo was the defendant at trial and appellant on appeal.
- The trial court found Pastor Tan Mateo guilty of treason, sentenced him to 15 years of reclusion temporal with the legal accessories, fined him P2,000, and assessed costs; the defendant appealed from that judgment.
- The Supreme Court, in the decision reported, considered the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence as within the statutory range.
Charge and Conviction
- The formal charge against the appellant was treason.
- The trial court convicted the appellant of treason and imposed the penalties described above.
- On appeal, the conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Defendant's Admissions and Denials
- The appellant admitted that he is a native citizen of the Philippines.
- The appellant admitted that he was a provincial guard and that he worked in the Public Opinion Office in 1943.
- The appellant denied that he was an informer, denied that he caused the arrest of Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan, and denied that he accompanied those who arrested Angeles Catan.
Factual Background — Employment and Organizational Context
- The prosecution's evidence placed the appellant as employed in the Public Opinion Office in Dumaguete, Oriental Negros, from June 1942 to March 1945.
- The Public Opinion Office in Dumaguete was an organization headed by Teodorico Lajato.
- The stated purpose of that Office, as established by witness testimony, was to gather information for the Japanese Army about the movements and activities of guerrillas in the province of Oriental Negros.
- The Office had an address on Silliman Avenue and, on 18 October 1943, relocated to W. A. Jones Street.
- The organization’s function, as testified, was to observe guerrilla movements and activities and to report such observations and information to the head of the organization.
Factual Background — Acts and Activities Attributed to the Appellant
- Witnesses testified that the appellant was frequently seen in the house of Teodorico Lajato, where the Office had its headquarters.
- Witnesses testified that the appellant used to go around Dumaguete and its environs observing and gathering information about guerrilla movements and activities, and that he reported findings to Teodorico Lajato or Major Bartolome Soledad, the Chief of Police of Dumaguete.
- The prosecution evidence recounted specific incidents in which the appellant participated in arrests and apprehensions conducted under the direction of the Chief of Police.
Specific Incident — Arrest of Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan (28 March 1943)
- On 28 March 1943, the appellant reported to Chief of Police Bartolome Soledad his suspicion that Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan were in league with the guerrillas, noting that they came to and left town without being molested by the guerrillas and suggesting their arrest and investigation.
- The Chief of Police ordered his men to proceed to barrio Ubos, Dumaguete, to apprehend Calubiran and Chan.
- In compliance with the order, the appellant, Sergeant Tomas Merced, Corporal Fausto Avila, and patrolmen Alejandro Lazola, Pedro Gadiani, and Vicente Vancani or Pancayre went to barrio Ubos in the evening and apprehended Alfonso Calubiran and Antonio Chan.
- Calubiran and Chan were brought to town, imprisoned for eight days in the Trade School building used as a jail, investigated and ill-treated during that detention, and subsequently released.
- More than two witnesses testified to this particular arrest and the appellant’s important part in it; specifically, witnesses who testified to seeing that arrest included Alejandro Lazola, Antonio Chan, Alfonso Calubiran, and Pedro Gadiani.
Specific Incident — Arrest of Angeles Catan (Mid-October 1944)
- In mid-October 1944, the appellant, together with patrolmen Avila and Penero and another person, went to the house of Pedro Adaya in barrio Ubos to look for Angeles Catan.
- On learning that Catan was in the house of Pedro Adanza on Santa Catalina Street in the same barrio, they proceeded there, found Catan, and apprehended him.
- Catan was taken to the Kempei Tai headquarters at Silliman Hall in Dumaguete.
- The evidence does not disclose a treasonous motive or conduct for Catan’s arrest; testimony indicated that after his arrest Catan returned to the barrio the following day, and othe