G.R. No. 182573 - Shu vs. Dee

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182573)

Petitioner, Respondent and Procedural Posture

The People prosecuted the Mangahas brothers for treason in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Cases Nos. 742 and 744). With their consent, the defendants were tried jointly. After conviction and sentencing to reclusion temporal (14 years, 8 months, 1 day), ancillary penalties and fines of P10,000 each, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Several justices concurred; Justice Feria took no part.

Key Dates

Overt acts occurred in December 1944 and January 1945: notably raids and arrests on 13, 29 and 30 December 1944, and the sighting of a captured guerrilla on 2 January 1945. The decision on appeal was rendered June 9, 1953.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable constitutional framework: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (the correct constitution for a decision rendered in 1953). The criminal charge is treason, as prosecuted under the laws in force at the time of the offenses and trial. The Court applied principles relevant to treason prosecutions, including requirements for proof and the "two-witness" consideration for certain elements as referenced in the trial record and decision.

Material Facts Found by the Trial Court

On 13 December 1944, a group of about 30 armed Makapili raided Lawang and apprehended guerrillas; Enriqueta B. de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz identified the Mangahas brothers among the raiders who took foodstuffs from Martin de la Merced’s house and carried them to the Makapili garrison.
On 29 December 1944, the Makapili, including the defendants, are found to have taken property and apprehended Primo S. Cruz; Primo was later taken to the San Jose garrison and never returned. Widow Maria S. Cruz testified to this.
On 30 December 1944, the defendants and others apprehended Moises Legaspi at his home and brought him to the Makapili garrison; his wife Purita Ramos and son Matias (then 11 at the time of the event, 16 at trial) identified the appellants among the five Makapili involved. Moises Legaspi disappeared thereafter.
Also on 30 December 1944, defendants are adjudged to have taken Artemio Nicolas from his house; after being tied and taken to the poblacion and San Jose garrison he was not seen again. Widow Virginia Boluran testified as to Artemio’s arrest and disappearance.
The defendants admitted Filipino citizenship but denied participation in some of the specific acts; one defendant claimed he had been arrested by the Japanese on 25 December 1944 (a contention assessed against eyewitness testimony).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the acts alleged (apprehension of guerrillas, removal of supplies, performance of sentry/drilling duties and carrying firearms) constitute adherence to the enemy and therefore support a treason conviction.
Whether the evidence satisfies the required proof for treason, including the sufficiency and credibility of witness testimony and the rule regarding the number or quality of witnesses for certain treason elements.
Whether the arrests, disappearances and alleged shootings support the treason counts where some facts (e.g., deaths) are proven only by single-witness testimony.

Court’s Analysis on Adherence to the Enemy

The Court held that the collective acts attributed to the defendants — arresting known guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs intended for guerrillas, performing sentry duties, drilling in public, and openly bearing arms — constituted adherence to the enemy. The Court emphasized that prior membership in the Ganap Party and subsequent association with the Makapili organization during the occupation further supported the conclusion of allegiance to the enemy. These overt acts, as found by the trial court, were sufficient manifestations of collaboration to sustain the charge of treason.

Court’s Analysis on Sufficiency of Evidence for Specific Counts

Counts supported by multiple eyewitnesses: The Court accepted the testimony of Enriqueta B. de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz about the 13 December raid and the testimony of Purita Ramos and Matias Legaspi regarding Moises Legaspi’s arrest. The trial court credited Matias’s identification despite his youth at the time of the event; the Supreme Court found this credibility determination reasonable and declined to disregard his testimony.
Counts relying on single-witness testimony: The arrests of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas were established only by the testimony of their respective widows (single witnesses), and the Court recognized that the absence of two witnesses meant the evidence was insufficient to establish treason for those specific counts that required firmer corroboration of certain elements. Nevertheless, the Court found that even where the two-witness requirement rendered a treason count unsupported, the underlying facts still proved adherence to the enemy for purposes of other counts and to establish the defendants’ collaboration.

Credibility and Weight of Conflicting Testimony

The Court rejected the defendants’ self-serving denials when contradicted by eyewitness testimony. In particular, Cayetano Mangahas’s claim of having been arrested by the Japanese on 25 December 1944 did not outweigh contemporaneous eyewitness identifications placing him among the raiders on 13 December 1944. The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings, noting the trial court’s acceptance of witnesses such as Matias Legaspi and the two female eyewitnesses who identified the appellants during the raid.

On the Two-Witness Rule and its Effect on Penalty

The Court recognized the two-witness principle in treason prosecutions: certain treason elements historically required corroborative testimony. The decision cites precedent illustrating that lack of instruction or other mitigating considerations have at times affected punishment. Here, however, the Court found that the evidence did not show the appellants participated

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 182573)

Procedural Posture

G.R. Nos. L-5367 & L-5368; decision rendered June 09, 1953 by Justice Padilla.
Cases Nos. 742 and 744 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan tried jointly with the consent of both defendants.
Defendants Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas were charged with treason, tried together, found guilty, and appealed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, with costs against the appellants.
Justices Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concurred; Justice Feria took no part.

Parties

Plaintiff and Appellee: The People of the Philippines.
Defendants and Appellants: Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas.
Additional individuals identified in the record: Martin de la Merced (commanding officer of the guerrillas), Enriqueta B. de la Merced, Jose Perez, Julian Payumo, Lucio Ocampo, Francisco Castillo, Moises Legaspi, Purita Ramos, Matias Legaspi, Primo S. Cruz, Artemio Nicolas, Maria S. Cruz, Virginia Boluran, Captain Basilio Leonardo, and others identified as Makapilis and Japanese soldiers.

Charges, Conviction and Sentence

Charge: Treason.
Conviction: Both defendants found guilty of treason after trial.
Sentence: Each defendant sentenced to suffer 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to suffer the accessories of the law, to pay a fine of P10,000 each, and to pay the costs.

Chronology of Factual Allegations — December 13, 1944 Incident

Date and time: About 11 o'clock A.M., 13 December 1944 (Saturday).
Jose Perez, a guerrilla runner operating around Victory Hill in Norzagaray, informed Martin de la Merced that about 30 armed Makapilis raided Lawang (a section of Norzagaray) and apprehended several guerrilla members.
Martin de la Merced and other guerrillas ran toward the bushes to escape the Makapilis after receiving the report.
A second runner, Julian Payumo, informed Enriqueta that Captain Basilio Leonardo's house had already been raided.
A third runner, Lucio Ocampo, told Enriqueta that the Makapilis were in front of the municipal building.
Enriqueta left her house and moved across the street to observe events.
The Makapilis, among whom were alleged to be Cayetano Mangahas, Mariano de los Santos Mangahas and Francisco Castillo, arrived, surrounded the house, some went up into the house, and took foodstuffs intended for guerrillas at Victory Hill.
Seized foodstuffs were described as: 5 sacks of rice, 2 cans of salted beef, a basketful of camote, a basketful of tomatoes, a small bag of salt, and a half sack of sardines, salmon and corned beef.
Enriqueta B. de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz testified as to these overt acts.

Chronology of Factual Allegations — Late December 1944 Arrests and Seizures

December 29, 1944: A group of armed Makapilis, among whom were alleged to be the two defendants, entered the house of Primo S. Cruz in Norzagaray, took rice, shoes, a helmet, clothes and other items; they apprehended Primo S. Cruz, tied him with others, and brought him to the San Jose garrison where Japanese soldiers were stationed; he has not returned and has not been seen since.
December 30, 1944: A group of armed Makapilis, among whom were the two defendants, seized items and apprehended Artemio Nicolas in Norzagaray, tied him and brought him first to the poblacion and then to the San Jose garrison; he has not returned and has not been seen since.
December 30, 1944: Five persons, among whom were the two defendants, came to the house of Moises Legaspi in Norzagaray, apprehended him and brought him to the Makapili garrison.
January 2, 1945 (three days after Legaspi’s arrest): Purita Ramos and her children, the eldest of whom was Matias Legaspi (11 years old at the time of the arrest), went to the Makapili garrison and saw Moises Legaspi; since that visit he has not returned and has not been seen.
Testimony supporting the foregoing arrests and seizures was given by Purita Ramos and Matias Legaspi in respect of Moises Legaspi; by Maria S. Cruz for Primo S. Cruz; and by Virginia Boluran for Artemio Nicolas as to those arrests.

Witnesses and Evidentiary Facts

Prosecution witnesses included: Jose Perez (runner), Julian Payumo (runner), Lucio Ocampo (runner), Enriqueta B