Title
People vs. Fausto Taborada
Case
G. R. No. L-4230
Decision Date
May 31, 1952
Fausto Taborada, a Filipino undercover agent for the Japanese Kempei Tai, arrested, tortured, and collaborated against guerrilla suspects during WWII, leading to his conviction for treason.
treason
criminal law
reclusion temporal

Case Summary (G. R. No. L-4230)

Factual Background

For Count No. 2, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Francisco Lopez and Francisca Navaja. On August 24, 1944, Taborada went to the Taiwan Shiko So on Martires Street, Cebu City, where Lopez was employed as a toolkeeper. Lopez testified that Taborada informed him that he was wanted in Taborada’s office at the Kempei Tai on charges of connection with the guerrillas. Lopez was taken to the Kempei Tai. There, his hands were tied at the back and he was suspended in mid-air. While being questioned by Japanese undercovers named Cocon and Duaso, Lopez was accused of possessing papers under guerrilla lieutenant Navarro. During that time, Taborada beat Lopez with a branch of an acacia approximately three feet long and three inches in diameter. Lopez then fell unconscious, and upon regaining consciousness he was again beaten and kicked on the sides. Lopez was released after four days. For about two weeks he could not work due to injuries sustained during his confinement and at the hands of Taborada and his companions. Lopez stated that Taborada and his companions were armed with a pistol when Lopez was arrested.

For Count No. 3, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of Timoteo Cabras and Marcela Cabras. On January 27, 1944, Taborada, together with two undercovers named Labra and Cocon and many Japanese soldiers, went to the home of Timoteo Cabras in Cebu City to look for Timoteo’s daughter Fortunata Cabras, a nurse then believed to be with the guerrillas in the mountains. Timoteo was questioned about permitting Fortunata to join the guerrillas and was accused of hiding guerrillas. After that questioning, Timoteo and his wife and two children were taken to the Kempei Tai office. The following day, Timoteo was taken to the mountains to carry rice for the Japanese soldiers. He was released after two weeks. Fortunata was released after two days. At the time of arrest, Taborada was armed with a pistol.

For Count No. 4, the witnesses were Teofista Nacorda, Juana Jomaoan, and Trinidad Alesna. They testified that on November 2, 1944, Teofista sent her son Domingo to a neighbor while they lived in Labangon, Cebu City. Taborada and other Filipino undercovers met Domingo on his way and asked whether he was a guerrilla. Jomaoan interceded, stating Domingo was not a guerrilla, but the intercession failed. Domingo denied he was a guerrilla, but his hands were tied at the back and he was taken to Mambaling, followed by his mother. Domingo was then brought back to Labangon and asked to point out soldiers in the vicinity who were guerrillas. He could not identify anyone, so he was sent back to prison. Jomaoan and the others stated that Teofista was released while Domingo was detained, and the detention of Domingo was attributed to suspicion that he was a guerrilla. The witnesses further testified that the Filipino undercovers accompanying Taborada at the time were with Japanese undercovers named Diplong and Tony, and that the group carried homemade revolvers.

For Count No. 5, the prosecution presented Teofista Sacristan, Tereso Sanchez, and Antonio de la Cerna. They testified that on July 29, 1944, Taborada went to the house of Braulio Padilla, husband of Teofista Sacristan, and ordered Braulio and all males in the neighborhood to proceed to the chapel of Mambaling, Cebu City. Braulio complied and returned that afternoon at about 4:00 o’clock, with his hands tied at the back, accompanied by three undercovers, one of whom was Taborada, and the others Campos and Racasa. Taborada was then armed with a pistol. Taborada and the companions came to the chapel, looking for arms but finding none. Braulio was then returned to prison. On July 30, Braulio was brought to Mount Toong with about twenty-two Filipino prisoners, including Tereso Sanchez. The undercovers who accompanied them to the mountains included Taborada, Racasa, Bautista, and others. Many Japanese Kempei Tai soldiers were also present. The witnesses explained that people were arrested and brought to the Mambaling chapel because a grenade had been thrown by guerrillas at a train and a truck loaded with Japanese navy men had been ambushed. Braulio was charged by Racasa as being a guerrilla.

Once at the mountains, Braulio was beaten badly. He was made to lie down, and the undercovers jumped on his breast. Afterward, the Filipino prisoners were shot at and shot at the back by the undercovers and by the Japanese. Of the twenty-two persons, seventeen were killed, including Braulio. The evidence, however, did not show that Taborada was responsible for the killing of Padilla or of any of the prisoners.

In his defense, Taborada admitted that he was a Filipino citizen and presented testimonies of Pedro Villareal and Roberto Bautista, as well as his own testimony. Villareal stated that he was a first lieutenant of the commando troops of the guerrillas since May 1943, and that Taborada joined his unit in January 1944, staying until September 1944. Taborada admitted that he arrested Lopez but claimed he did so under orders of Lieutenant Villareal; he asserted that he brought Lopez to the mountains and punished him there and that Lopez was imprisoned for a time. Regarding Count No. 3, Villareal testified that he ordered Taborada to arrest Cabras because Cabras was collaborating with the Japanese. Villareal further testified that Taborada reported that he had warned Cabras to stop helping the enemy. Taborada admitted that he tied Cabras’s hands during the investigation but asserted that his purpose was to compel Cabras to stop working with the Japanese. Regarding Count No. 4, Taborada denied participating in Domingo Nacorda’s arrest, asserting that on November 4, 1944 he was under Japanese detention, having been arrested on September 28, 1944. He nevertheless admitted knowing Racasa and Duaso, allegedly involved in the arrest of Domingo. Regarding Count No. 5, Taborada claimed that in June 1944 he investigated Padilla, Sanchez, and de la Cerna to determine whether they were Huks and that he punished them by boxing when he found them to be Huks, but that he was already arrested by the Japanese in July 1944. Villareal also testified that he ordered Padilla shot on sight because he had guided the Japanese in capturing guerrillas, and both witnesses denied that Taborada was a spy for the Japanese.

Proceedings in the People’s Court

The People’s Court, Fifth Division found that the charges in Counts Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 were proved beyond reasonable doubt and complied with the two-witness rule. It convicted Taborada of treason on those counts and sentenced him to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and imposed a P2,000 fine.

Issues on Appeal and the Appellant’s Position

On appeal, Taborada’s counsel did not make specific assignments of error. The Court nevertheless addressed the arguments raised by counsel in relation to the sufficiency of proof and satisfaction of the two-witness rule for each of the four counts.

For Count No. 2, counsel argued that Lopez’s arrest was not proved by two witnesses because Francisca Navaja allegedly did not state that she saw the actual arrest of Lopez in the presence of that witness. For Count No. 3, counsel pointed to alleged discrepancies in prosecution witness testimony. For Count No. 4, counsel argued that the two-witness rule was not satisfied because there were asserted differences among Teofista Nacorda, Juana Jomaoan, and Trinidad Alesna. For Count No. 5, counsel contended that proof under the two-witness rule was deficient because the witnesses’ testimony allegedly diverged as to both the arrest and the torture.

Taborada’s defenses across the counts consistently sought to frame his acts as guerrilla functions rather than Japanese collaboration. He claimed that in certain incidents he acted under orders of Villareal or as part of guerrilla enforcement. As to Count No. 4, he asserted that he was under Japanese detention at the time of the alleged arrest. As to Count No. 5, he asserted he investigated suspected Huks earlier and later was already arrested by the Japanese.

Appellate Court’s Evaluation of Counts Two to Four

With respect to Count No. 2, the Court held the argument on lack of two-witness corroboration was unfounded. While Francisca Navaja did not expressly state that Lopez was arrested in her presence, she testified that she saw Taborada looking for Lopez, that she heard Taborada telling Lopez he was wanted in his office at the Kempei Tai, and that after “two days confinement” Lopez did not return. The Court treated this as sufficient corroboration. It also treated as significant Taborada’s own admission that he caused Lopez’s arrest, subject to his explanation that he did so as a guerrilla operative. The Court found that explanation belied by the testimony of Lopez and Navaja, who both described that Lopez was taken to the Kempei Tai because he was suspected to be connected with the guerrillas. The Court reasoned that if Taborada acted as a guerrilla in arresting Lopez, there was no reason to bring Lopez to the Kempei Tai instead of to the mountains, where guerrillas allegedly brought enemies. The Court therefore concluded that Taborada’s role in the incident must have been that of a Japanese agent.

For Count No. 3, the Court considered the asserted discrepancies in prosecution testimony but placed decisive weight on Taborada’s admission that Timoteo Cabras was arrested. The Court rejected the claim that Cabras was arrested by Taborada in a guerrilla capacity because Cabras testified that he was taken to the Japanese Kempei Tai, a fact corroborated by Cabras’s daughter. The Court reasoned that guerrillas did not bring enemies to Japanese prisons but to the mountains. It therefore concluded that Taborada arrested Cabras as a Japanese undercover, not as a guerrilla operative.

For Count No. 4, the Court addressed the alleged inconsistency among the prosecution witnesses. The first alle

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms