G.R. No. L-9529 - People vs. Villanueva

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9529)

Key Dates (procedural milestones)

Initial People’s Court conviction and death sentence (November 19, 1947 decision referenced in record).
Record elevated to Supreme Court for appeal and mandatory review (initial elevation noted March 10, 1948).
Remand ordered for retaking of missing testimonies (resolution August 1, 1952).
Appellant’s motion to withdraw appeal filed in the Iloilo CFI (August 24, 1953); Supreme Court initially granted withdrawal (September 21, 1953) but later reconsidered (October 19, 1953) and again remanded for retaking of testimony.
New decision by the Court of First Instance reproducing trial court decision and imposing capital punishment (October 11, 1955).
Supreme Court’s decision on final review (docket reflects ultimate disposition).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Governing constitutional framework: the pre-1987 constitution applicable to the decision (the 1935 Constitution was the operative charter at the time).
Relevant procedural and substantive provisions: Rule 118, Section 9 of the Rules of Court (mandatory Supreme Court review of all first-instance decisions imposing death); Articles 114 and 48 of the Revised Penal Code (treason and related provisions); Article VII, Section 10 (powers of the Executive regarding reprieves, commutations, and pardons) as referenced in the record for clemency issues. Established evidentiary and criminal-law doctrines concerning duress, credibility of positive testimony over mere denial, and the standards for invoking duress as a defense were applied.

Procedural History and Remand for Retaking Testimony

After conviction and death sentence by the People’s Court, the case reached the Supreme Court both by appeal and by mandatory review provision. A stenographic transcript of testimony taken October 8, 1947 went missing. The Solicitor General recommended, and the Supreme Court ordered, remand to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to retake the missing testimony of four witnesses (three civilian witnesses and the accused). During the remand phase the accused sought to withdraw his appeal to avail himself of an alleged conditional pardon; the Supreme Court initially (and mistakenly) granted the withdrawal but later reconsidered, holding that withdrawal could not prevent mandatory Supreme Court review of a death sentence and again remanded for retaking testimony and for a new decision by the trial court based on the retrial-limited scope.

Scope of the New Trial and Practical Considerations

The remand effectively required a limited new trial confined to the testimony of the same witnesses whose stenographic records were lost (two defense witnesses, one prosecution witness and the accused); the Court recognized that the new trial would be before a different judge and that the Court of First Instance should endeavor to have witnesses confine their testimony to the points previously made, which were described in the People’s Court decision. The Court cited precedent holding that remand under such circumstances amounted to a virtual new trial and required a new decision by the trial court.

Facts Found by the Trial Courts (Summarized Allegations)

The prosecution proved, on several counts, that during the Japanese occupation the accused, a Filipino owing allegiance to the Commonwealth, adhered to the enemy by serving as a secret agent, informer, and spy with the Japanese Detective Force in Iloilo. The evidence established active participation in punitive expeditions against guerrillas and civilians, and specific overt acts alleged and supported by eyewitness testimony included: arrests, torture and disappearance of suspected guerrillas; looting and theft of property; the beating, stripping, and bayoneting to death of identified victims (including women and minors); burning of houses with bodies inside; and mass arrests and killings across multiple incidents in Tigbauan, Leon, Guimbal and Tubungan. The People’s Court had been unable to sustain conviction on two of seven prosecuted counts (Counts 1 and 2), but convicted on Counts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which constituted violent and lethal acts in the service of the occupying forces.

Evidentiary Record and Witness Testimony

Multiple eyewitnesses corroborated one another across the various incidents: neighbors and survivors testified to the presence of the accused acting with and alongside Japanese soldiers; to the arrests, torture, killings, and looting described in the information; and to particularly egregious acts (e.g., stripping and repeated bayoneting of victims). The prosecution’s evidence was characterized in the record as “overwhelming.” On retrial, only defense witnesses Ambrosio Tuble and Basilia Taborete testified anew; the accused also presented documentary material concerning an alleged conditional pardon.

Defense Theories Presented at Trial

The accused advanced essentially two defenses: (1) categorical denial of the overt acts imputed to him; and (2) duress — that he served in the Japanese detective force only because he had been coerced and that his service was for the public good, saving Filipino lives. The defense relied primarily on the accused’s own testimony and the two defense witnesses; no independent or contemporaneous proof of coercion that met the legal standard for duress was presented.

Legal Standards Applied — Duress and Credibility

The Court reaffirmed settled principles: (a) positive, corroborated testimony of eyewitnesses outweighs mere denials; (b) duress as an exculpatory defense requires present, imminent, and compelling force creating a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm such that the accused had no opportunity for escape or resistance; threats of future injury, vague fear, or uncorroborated claims do not satisfy the standard. Applying these principles, the Court found the accused’s duress claim unsupported by independent evidence and insufficient in law to excuse or mitigate the criminal conduct proved.

Executive Clemency and Withdrawal of Appeal

The accused relied on documentary evidence of a conditional pardon program purportedly extending to prisoners convicted by the People’s Court. The record included a certified copy of a conditional pardon and a presidential office letter indicating that prisoners whose appeals were pending would be released only after withdrawal of appeal. The Supreme Court carefully explained that an accused’s withdrawal of an appeal in a case where a death sentence has been imposed does not oust the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction under Rule 118, Section 9; thus withdrawal cannot render the People’s Court judgment “final” for purposes of executive clemency because under the governing constitutional and judicial practice there is no final conviction until the Supreme Court completes its automatic review and renders its own decision. The Court also distinguished an interlocutory factual situation in another defendant’s case where a pardon was granted after the Supreme Court’s final judgment — that case was inapposite because the pardon there followed a final Supreme Court decision.

Trial Court Disposition and Solicitor-General’s Recommendation on Indemnities

The Court of First Instance, after the limited retrial, found nothing in the newly adduced evidence to disturb the People’s Court decision and reproduced the People’s Court judgment, reimposing the capital sentence. The Solicitor-General recommended increasing the indemnity

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9529)

Procedural History

Appellant Pedro T. Villanueva was tried by the Fifth Division of the defunct People’s Court and was sentenced to death for the crime of treason.
Villanueva duly appealed to the Supreme Court; the case was before this Court also under Section 9 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court which mandates review by the Supreme Court of all lower-court decisions imposing the death penalty.
The stenographic transcript of testimony taken on October 8, 1947, before the People’s Court could not be found; upon the Solicitor General’s recommendation, this Court issued a resolution on August 1, 1952, remanding the case to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo for retaking the missing testimony of four witnesses: Gregorio Gaton, Ambrosio Tuble, Basilia Taborete, and the accused himself.
On August 24, 1953, appellant petitioned the CFI of Iloilo to be allowed to withdraw his appeal to avail himself of Executive clemency granted conditionally to prisoners convicted of treason, on the express condition that such appeals be first withdrawn.
The CFI returned the case to the Supreme Court for action in view of the requested withdrawal and because the Supreme Court was required to review any death sentence.
The Supreme Court’s agenda for September 21, 1953, was prepared on the basis of appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal; the Court, following its practice of granting withdrawals where briefs had not yet been filed, granted the motion by resolution of September 21, 1953.
On the afternoon of September 21, 1953, after the resolution, appellant filed directly with the Supreme Court a petition reiterating the withdrawal request and attaching two documents claimed to be copies of a conditional pardon and a letter from the Legal Assistant in the Office of the President to the Director of Prisons.
Upon consideration of that later petition, the Supreme Court realized the nature of the case and concluded that the earlier grant of withdrawal on September 21 was a mistake and contrary to legal precedent; accordingly, by resolution dated October 19, 1953, the Court reconsidered and remanded the case again to the CFI of Iloilo for retaking the missing testimonies with instructions that a new decision be rendered based on those testimonies together with the standing evidence from the People’s Court.
The October 19, 1953 resolution restated the People’s Court judgment and emphasized that the Supreme Court’s automatic review of death-penalty cases cannot be waived by the accused’s withdrawal of appeal.
At the new trial in the CFI of Iloilo the retaken testimony was limited; only the defense witnesses Ambrosio Tuble and Basilio Taborete testified anew, and appellant presented documentary evidence concerning the alleged conditional pardon.
On October 11, 1955, the CFI, finding no reason to disturb the People’s Court decision, reproduced the People’s Court decision and rendered judgment sentencing appellant to death.
The case was again elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review and assigned the present docket number (G.R. No. L-9529) culminating in the decision dated August 30, 1958.

Charges and Pleadings

The amended information filed before the People’s Court charged appellant with treason on ten counts.
The prosecution introduced evidence on seven of those counts: Counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The People’s Court found Counts 1 and 2 not proven and convicted appellant on Counts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Allegations and Evidentiary Summary — Count 6

Allegation (as recited in the amended information): On or about June 10, 1943, in barrios Baroc and Atabayan, municipality of Tigbauan, Iloilo, appellant, with intent to adhere to the enemy and as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army, in company with other Filipino spies and several Japanese soldiers, arrested specified persons suspected to be guerrillas, investigated, maltreated and tortured them; the arrested persons were later not seen; on that patrol appellant and companions looted the house of Jose T. Belandrez taking Philippine currency P300, emergency notes P1,200, jewelry valued at P500, clothing P200 and other personal effects, and from the house of Toribia Taleon jewelry, watches, clothing and other personal effects valued at approximately P160.
Testimony: Jose T. Belandrez, Salvador Toranto, Toribia Taleon and Maria Mendoza corroborated one another, testifying that at dawn of June 10, 1943, appellant accompanied by Filipinos and Japanese soldiers went to the house of Jose T. Belandrez in Tigbauan and took therefrom P1,200 in cash, jewelry worth P300 and clothing valued at P200; they also testified that Dionisio Belandrez, Modesto Torremoro and Napoleon Luceno, members of the Bolo Battalion, were arrested and never returned.

Allegations and Evidentiary Summary — Count 7

Allegation (as recited): On or about August 9–10, 1943, in Tigbauan, appellant, as agent, informer and spy, in company with Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, arrested and apprehended several persons suspected of guerrilla activities; the persons were investigated, maltreated and tortured resulting in the death of Salvador Tedor from beating and torture; subsequently about thirty-seven persons were taken to Valentina Amandoron’s house where Filipino co-spies and the Japanese killed by beheading numerous persons (many named), while others were wounded but survived.
Testimony: Six witnesses — Severa Gua, Natividad Duga, Alfredo Trompeta, Hilario Taghap and Valentina Amandoron — corroborated that on August 9 or 10, 1943, Japanese soldiers with Filipinos including appellant approached and arrested barrio residents, that appellant arrested Eustaquio Duga, that later Severa Gua found Eustaquio Duga’s head almost severed among other corpses in Valentina Amandoron’s yard; Alfredo Trompeta and Roque Teologo testified they were arrested and taken with about thirty persons suspected of guerrilla activity, then taken to Valentina Amandoron’s house where appellant and his companions killed in cold blood many prisoners — among the twenty-five persons killed on that occasion were Andres Tayo, Tomas Trompeta, Rufo Tolato, Roque Teologo, Jose Taucon and Matias Tiranea.

Allegations and Evidentiary Summary — Count 8

Allegation (as recited): On or about August 12, 1943, in Leon, Iloilo, appellant, as agent, informer and spy with Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, arrested multiple persons suspected of guerrilla activity, set fire to houses in barrio Taal, took prisoners to barrio Baguingin where they were investigated, maltreated and tortured; appellant, with premeditation and treachery, bayonetted to death Cosme Calacasan while tied to a tree, and others were killed by companions; corpses were gathered in the house of Juan Caya which was then set on fire with the dead bodies inside.
Testimony: Aurelio Calacasan and Jose Canillas corroborated that on the morning of August 12, 1943, several persons including Cosme Calacasan were arrested by Japanese soldiers and taken to barrio Taal where they saw appellant and companions; after setting fire to houses appellant and companions brought prisoners to barrio Agboy for investigation, and appellant stabbed to death Cosme Calacasan, a member of the Bolo Battalion; several prisoners were killed and their corpses placed in a house which was set afire.

Allegations and Evidentiary Summary — Count 9

Allegation (as recited): On or about August 12, 1943, in Leon, Iloilo, appellant, as agent, informer and spy with Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, conducted a raid and mass arrest of persons suspected as guerrillas, gathering about eighty persons in a schoolhouse and chapel in barrio Buenavista where they were inves