1 TRreason

G.R. No. L-2318

March 31, 1950

THE
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
TEOFILO PAAR (alias TEOFILO PAJAR, alias BEN PAJAR), defendant-appellant.TORRES, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the now defunct People's Court which found Teofilo Paar guilty of
treason and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay a fine of P10,000 and the
costs. The defendant of the fifteen counts, and the prosecution presented evidence to support only the
allegations made in the first, fourth, seventh and eight counts.

As they could not get anything from her, she was made to work as washer-woman in the garrison, until
she was released sometime on December 20, 1944. The testimony of Patricia Guerrero was, to a certain
extent, corroborated by Carlitos Costales.
It is noted, however, that Carlitos Costales did not corroborate the statement of Patricia Guerrero that
she saw the appellant standing beside a car parked in front of the house and which brought the two
Japanese members of the Military Police who arrested Patricia. it appears, therefore, that while the
evidence of the prosecution regarding this count establishes the adherence of the appellant to the
enemy, it fails to prove the same overt act as required by law.

From our study of the evidence, we find that as regards the first count, it has been established by the
prosecution, and the defense did not deny, that between October, 1944, and February, 1945, Teofilo Paar
worked for the Japanese Kempei Tai as an undercover man. In fact, the appellant himself, by his
testimony, and that of his witness Juan S. Alano, admitted that he affiliated himself with the Military
Police of Baguio. The government witness have, during that period of time, seen him parading in the
streets of Baguio with members of the Kempei Tai, dressed in their uniform and carrying a .45 caliber
pistol.

Three witnesses were put on the stand by the prosecution in support of count No. 7. In December, 1944,
Melquiades Valdez, assistant sanitary inspector in Baguio, was making an inspection around the market
accompanied by Dr. Emilio Reyes. While they were conversing, Teofilo Paar approached the group and
inquired for Melquiades Valdez. The latter identified himself and par told Dr. Reyes that he was taking
Valdez to the military police for questioning. The accused conducted Valdez to the Kempei Tai, and upon
arrival the names of Valdez and one Antonio Romero and handed it ton the Japanese guard, saying: here
are Valdez and Romero." Valdez was investigated and tortured on the charge of listening to radio
broadcasts from San Francisco and spreading the new heard by him.

It is claimed by appellant that he entered the service of the Kempei Tai without the intent of betraying
his country and his people, and that even if he were responsible for or participated in the arrest of
civilians on suspicion of underground activities, he can not be held liable for treason in view of the
absence of the essential elements of adherence. The record, however, shows that his overt acts
evidenced his adherence to the enemy, and even in the absence of either proof, the very act of giving
information to the enemy, constitutes not only giving aid and comfort, but also show adherence to the
enemy. It clearly appears that Teofilo Paar joined the Kempei Tai or Japanese Military Police, whose main
purpose was to obtain information and other necessary data to suppress the resistance movement. This
is treasonous adherence which constitutes a violation of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.

Regarding the eight count, it appears at about noon of December 30, 1944, while Dr. Irineo Solano was
in the house of Felisa Caliao, his niece, named Maria Taverna, informed him that a Filipino and a
Japanese were waiting for him. Solano met the visitors, the accused and a Japanese. In answer to
defendant's query, if he was Irineo Solano, the latter identified himself and the accused told him that he
was to go with the Japanese officer. Doctor Solano was conducted to the Japanese officer. Doctor Solano
was conducted to the Japanese Military Police headquarters and once in the garrison, the accused left
the group. Investigated on account of his guerrillaactivities and his pro-American propaganda work, the
doctor was maltreated and was not released until January 14, 1945.

Much emphasis is given by appellant on the allegation that Teofilo Paar joined the Kempei Tai upon the
advise of one Major Laconico of the underground movement. Apart from the fact that he never
mentioned Major Laconico to the CIC (Counter Intelligence Corps of the USAFFE) when he was being
investigated by said organization, if he was really made to join the Kempei Tai in obedience to
instructions of Major Laconico and in furtherance of the resistance movement his direct participation in
the activities of the Kempei Tai, for whom he was acting as agent or undercover man, having been
observed by the witnesses for the prosecution, completely negatives his exculpatory explanations.
It stands to reason that, if appellant was really "plated" by Major Laconico in the City of Baguio, as an
observer, to further the resistance movement, he had many other means to accomplish his alleged
mission of helping the guerrillas. But his close association with the Kempei Tai, that most hated
organization of the Japanese invader, his participation in the arrest of several persons who were
subsequently deprived of their freedom and tortured on suspicion that they were sympathetic with the
underground forces, far from convincing us the that he joined the Japanese Military Police for a worthy
patriotic purpose, strengthens our belief that he deliberately, for sordid motives, entered the service of
the Kempei Tai, because he thought that Japan would win the last war. .
To substantiate count No. 41, the prosecution, through the testimony of Patricia Guerrero, a waitress in
the City Lunch Restaurant in Baguio, proved that in the morning of October 3, 1944, while she was
dressing up, she heard a knock on the door of her room on the upper floor of the Mayo Building. Before
opening the door, she peeped through the window and saw the accused standing beside a car. When
Patricia opened the door of her room she met two members of the Japanese Military Police who ordered
her to dress up because she was to be taken to their headquarters. She went with the two Japanese, but
when she reached the car, the accused was no longer around. She was investigated and maltreated by
the Japanese who wanted to get information about the resistance movement.

The testimony of Doctor Solano was corroborated by that of Felisa Caliao regarding the fact that on
December 30, 1944, while the doctor was in her house, Solano was taken by a Filipino who happened to
be this appellant; she further said that Paar called for doctor Solano and took him to the car where a
Japanese officer was waiting.
The evidence is a very clear from the testimonies of Melquiades Valdez and Dr. Emilio Reyes, that the
former was arrested and brought to the headquarters of the military police by Teofilo Paar who delivered
him to the Japanese garrison. Soon after the accused delivered Melquiades Valdez to Kempei Tai, he was
investigated for disseminating news broadcasted by the San Francisco station known as KGEI. The
testimonies of Valdez and Dr. Reyes are corroborated by a third witness Antonio Romero, who
substantially told the court his observations in connection with the arrest of Melquiades Valdez.
The testimony of Doctor Solano, corroborated by that of Felisa Caliao, established that the appellant was
responsible for the arrest of the doctor. The appellant alleged that he could not have participated in the
arrest of Melquiades Valdez and Dr. Irineo Solano, because he didn't know either of them. But it seems to
us that his mere denial cannot only by the victim of this treasonable acts but also by Dr. Emilio Reyes
and Felisa Caliao.
Discarding count No. 4 because, as already stated, the evidence presented by the prosecution does not
apply with the two-witness rule required by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, we are satisfied that
this appellant who, by his own admission is a Filipino's Court for the crime of treason, not only because
of his adherence to the enemy but also on the account of his having committed treasonable overt acts
resulting from his having directly participated in the arrest, detention and torture of the persons
mentioned elsewhere in this decision.

2 TRreason
The People's Court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but from our careful considerations of the facts,
it seems to us that, inasmuch as the treasonable acts committed by this appellant have not resulted in
the killing of the persons arrested by the Kempei Tai, through his intervention, the ends of justice will be
served if this culprit is sentenced to a lesser term of imprisonment.
Appellant is, therefore, sentenced to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, with the accessories of the law. Thus, modified, the judgment appealed from is otherwise
affirmed, costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
MORAN, C.J.:
Mr. Justice Paras, for the reasons given in this opinion, voted for the modification of the judgment
appealed from, but, on account of his being on leave at the time of the promulgation thereof, his
signature does not appear herein.

3 TRreason
G.R. No. L-2193

February 1, 1950

THE
PEOPLE
OF
vs.
FLORENTINO CANIBAS, defendant-appellant.

THE

PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Simeon
M.
Gopengco
for
appellant.
First Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan Jr. and Solicitor Adolfo Brillantes for appellee.
TUASON, J.:
Charged with treason on two counts, appellant Florentino Canibas was found guilty, in a unanimous
decision, by the third Branch of the People's Court, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of
P10,000, with costs.
On count 1, the court found that the accused, a native of Tarlac, arrived in Batangas from Lopez of the
now Province of Quezon in November, 1944. Soon after that, Makapili unit was organized in Lipa by the
accused together with one Nicolas Gonzales and others. Gonzales became the titular head of the
organization and defendant, its secretary. The accused, as members of the Makapili, wore Japanese
uniform and white arm band, was armed with a revolver, mounted guard and did sentry duty,
accompanied Japanese soldiers in raids against supposed guerrillas, confiscated foodstuff, and forced
male citizens to work for the Japanese army.
In support of count 2, the court found that on February 11, 1945, a group of Makapilis, among whom was
the accused, accompanied by Japanese troops, raided barrio Marajuy, municipality of Lipa, Province of
Batangas apprehended almost the entire population of the barrio, about 300 in all, including children
and adults, men and women, and marched them to a citrus experimental station. In that place, the
accused and others tied the victims by two's, after which the Japanese slaughtered the prisoners with
bayonets, with the exception of a few who were able to escape, one of them being Juan Navarro, who
testified at the trial. in the killings, children were tossed up in the air and caught with the points of
bayonets as they fell. Besides those who succeeded in escaping, five young girls were spared; they were
selected for their good look by the accused and his fellow Makapilis, and taken to Nicolas Gonzales'
house ina barrio in Sto. Tomas, Batangas, where they were kept as "servants" for Gonzales and the
Japanese. One of those girls was Lutgarda Tolentino, scarcely 15 years of age at the time of the
massacre, also a witness for the prosecution.
The first count has not have been established by the oaths of at least two witnesses. There are no two
direct witnesses to any of the component parts that made up the whole overt act of appellants
membership in the Makapili. (People vs. Adriano, 44 Off. Gaz., 4300.) 1 But the testimony on this branch
of the case is sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not to be
proved by two witnesses. Clear intent and knowledge may be gathered from the testimony of one of the
witnesses, or from the nature of the act itself, or from the circumstances surrounding the act. (Cramer
vs. U.S., 65 Sup. Ct., 980; People vs. Adriano, supra.)
The second count has been established in the manner required by law of treason. There is no proof by
two witnesses of the seizure at their homes of the inhabitants of Barrio Marajuy by the Japanese and the
accused, but there were three eye-witnesses to the fact to the fact that the accused was present at the
mass killings, taking active part therein in collaboration with the Japanese, by personally tying the hands
of some of the victims and directing the same operation with regard to others.
The accused, corroborated by Gonzales and another witness, put up an alibi, saying in answer to various
questions that he knew nothing of the charges and of the testimony of the government witnesses
against him. He said he fled to the mountains when the Americans were coming. The People's Court

believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and we do not think it committed any error in so
doing.
The judgment of conviction and the penalty imposed are in accordance with law and are hereby
affirmed, with costs of this instance against the appellant.
G.R. No. L-9529

August 30, 1958

THE
PEOPLE
OF
vs.
PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.

THE

PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosia Padilla and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for appellee.
J. M. Cajucom for appellant.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Pedro T. Villanueva was sentenced to death by the Fifth Division of the defunct People's Court
for the crime of treason. On March 10, 1948, the case was elevated to us (G. R. No. L-2073) not only by
virtue of the appeal duly interposed by the accused but also under the provisions of Section 9 of Rule
118 of the Rules of Court which provides mandatory review by this Tribunal of all decisions or judgments
of the lower courts imposing death penalties. Meantime, it was discovered that the transcript of
stenographic notes taken down on October 8, 1947, before the People's Court was missing and
unavailable, by reason of which and upon recommendation of the Solicitor General, we promulgated a
resolution on August 1, 1952, remanding the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the retaking
of the missing testimonies of the four witnesses who testified before the People's Court, namely,
Gregorio Gaton, Ambrosio Tuble, Basilia Taborete, and the accused himself. Thus the case was sent to
that court.
On August 24, 1953, appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo praying that he be
allowed to withdraw his appeal so as to avail himself of the benefits of the Executive clemency granted
to all prisoners convicted of treason, including those whose cases were pending appeal, on condition
that such appeals be first withdrawn. Whereupon the Court of First Instance of Iloilo returned the case to
us for whatever action we may take in view of the withdrawal requested, for, at all events, the case had
to be reviewed by us regardless of defendant's appeal. The case was included in the agenda prepared by
the Clerk of Court for September 21, 1953, only on the basis of the motion for withdrawal of appeal by
appellant, without calling the attention of the Tribunal that defendant had previously appealed from a
decision sentencing him to death, which decision called for an automatic review and judgment by us.
Accordingly, and following the practice of this Tribunal of acting favorably on petitions for withdrawal of
appeals where briefs had not been filed, as in the present case, said petition for withdrawal was granted
by resolution of September 21, 1953. However, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same date,
and after the passing of the resolution, appellant filed directly with this Court a petition reiterating his
request for withdrawal of appeal previously made with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, attaching
thereto two documents said to be copies of the conditional pardon granted him and of the letter of the
Legal Assistant in the office of the President addressed to the Director of Prisons. It was only on
considering this second petition when we realized the nature of the case and that the withdrawal of
appeal granted on September 21, 1953, was a mistake and contrary to legal precedents. So, in a
resolution dated October 19, 1953, this Tribunal reconsidered its resolution of September 21st granting
withdrawal of appeal, and again reminded the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the retaking
of the testimonies above referred to, with instructions that a new decision be rendered based on the said
testimonies and on the standing evidence adduced before the People's Court. The resolution of October
19th read as follows:

4 TRreason
By a decision dated November 19, 1947, the Fifth Division of the defunct People's Court after trial of
appellant Pedro T. Villanueva on a charge of treason on several counts, found him guilty of treason and
murder and sentenced him thus

been reviewed by the Supreme Court which finally passes upon it, the same is not final and conclusive;
and that this automatic review by the Supreme Court of decisions imposing the death penalty is
something which neither the court nor the accused could waive or evade.

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, finding the accused Pedro T. Villanueva guilty
of the complex crime of treason and murders as defined in Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, in
connection with Article 48 of the same Code, sentences him to suffer death penalty, with the accessories
of the law, to indemnify the heirs of Cosme Calacasan in the amount of P2,000, to indemnify the heirs of
Julia Cabilitasan in the amount of P2,000, to indemnify the heirs of Sofia Tambirao in the amount of
P2,000, and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) and the costs of the proceedings."

Furthermore, when the case was remanded to the lower court for the purpose of retaking the testimony
of those witnesses who testified on October 8, 1947, the case was virtually remanded for new trial. Of
course, the evidence and the testimony received during the trial before the People's Court which is still
intact and available shall stand and the new trial will be confined to the testimony of the same witnesses
who testified on October 8, 1947, the stenographic notes or transcript of which cannot now be found.
Under these circumstances, it is necessary for the trial court to render a new decision because the new
trial is being held before a new Judge and there is no assurance that the witnesses testifying, altho the
very same ones who were on the witness stand on October 8, 1947, would testify to the same facts and
in the same manner that they did at the former trial, altho they are supposed to do so. (See Demetria
Obien de Almario vs. Fidel Ibaez, et al, 46 O. G. No. 1, p. 390). Going over the record of the case, we
find that it would not be too difficult for the trial judge to see to it that the said witnesses as far as
possible confine themselves to the same points on which they testified on October 8, 1947, because the
testimonies of said witnesses including the defendant are referred to and described in the decision of the
People's Court on pages 87, 123, and 124 to 129, and that there are only four witnesses including the
accused himself.

Villanueva duly appealed to this Court. The records were sent up to us not only by virtue of the appeal
but also under the provisions of Rule 118, Section 9, of the Rules of Court which provides for review and
judgment by this Tribunal of all cases in which the death penalty shall have been imposed by a court of
first instance, whether the defendant shall have appealed or not.
It appearing that the stenographic notes taken of the testimony of the witnesses who testified on
October 8, 1947, could not be located, and following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, a
resolution was promulgated on August 1, 1952, remanding the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
for the retaking of the testimony of said witnesses.
Thereafter before said court defendant-appellant Villanueva filed a petition dated August 24, 1953,
stating that about July 4, 1953, the Chief Executive granted executive clemency to all prisoners
convicted of treason, including those whose cases were pending appeal, on condition that such appeals
be first withdrawn, supposedly to give finality to the judgment of the lower court, and asking that he be
allowed to withdraw his appeal. Acting upon said petition the Court of First Instance of Iloilo issued an
order dated September 10, 1953, directing the return of the case to this Court for whatever action it may
take in the premises, in view of the petition for withdrawal of the appeal filed by appellant and because
the case had to be reviewed by the Supreme Court anyway regardless of the appeal by the defendant.
The case was considered by us on September 21, 1953. The agenda of this Court on that date as regards
this was prepared by the Clerk of Court's Office only on the basis of the motion for withdrawal of appeal
by the defendant. Our attention was not called to the fact that defendant had previously appealed from
a decision sentencing him to death, which decision called for an automatic review and judgment by us.
So, following the practice of this Tribunal of acting favorably on petitions for withdrawal of appeals where
the briefs have not yet been filed, as in the present case, said petition for withdrawal of appeal was
granted by resolution of September 21, 1953. On the same date, however, and presumably after the
passing of the resolution, appellant Villanueva filed directly with this Court a petition reiterating the
request for withdrawal of his appeal previously made with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, attaching
to his petition Exhibits "A" and "B", said to be copies of the conditional pardon and of the letter of the
Legal Assistant in the Office of the President addressed to the Director of Prisons. It was only on
considering said petition that we realized the nature of the case and the decision appealed to this Court,
the withdrawal of which appeal had been granted by the resolution of September 21, 1953.
An accused appealing from a decision sentencing him to death may be allowed to withdraw his appeal
like any other appellant in an ordinary criminal case before the briefs are filed, but his withdrawal of the
appeal does not remove the case from the jurisdiction of this Court which under the law is authorized
and called upon to review the decision though unappealed. Consequently, the withdrawal of the appeal
in this case could not serve to render the decision of the People's Court final. In fact, as was said by this
Court thru Justice Moreland in the case of U.S. vs. Laguna, 17 Phil. 532, speaking on the matter of review
by this Court of a decision imposing the death penalty, the judgment of conviction entered in the trial
court is not final, and cannot be executed and is wholly without force or effect until the case has been
passed upon by the Supreme Court en consulta; that although a judgment of conviction is entered by
the trial court, said decision has none of the attributes of a final judgment and sentence; that until it has

Examining Exhibits "A" and "B" submitted by appellant in relation to his petition for the withdrawal of his
appeal, we find that although his name appears in the list of prisoners convicted by the People's Court
and supposed to be pardoned conditionally, the pardon itself refers to the remission of the
"unexpired portions of the prison sentence terms and the fines of the prisoners listed below who were
convicted by the defunct People's Court of treason and committed to the new Bilibid Prison to serve their
sentence." It is highly doubtful that the pardon could have contemplated and included appellant herein
because his sentence of death does not merely involve a prison term which expires in time. Besides, a
death sentence is not exactlyserved but rather executed. Moreover, Exhibit "B" says that "those
prisoners whose cases are still pending on appeal shall be released only after their appeal has been
withdrawn." The implication is that the withdrawal of the appeal rendered the decision of the People's
Court final, resulting in conviction, this to bring it into harmony with Art. VII, Sec. 10(6) of the
Constitution which requires conviction as a condition precedent to the exercise of Executive clemency.
As we have already stated, despite defendant's withdrawal of his appeal from the decision imposing the
death sentence, there is no definite conviction or sentence until and after this Tribunal has reviewed the
case and rendered its own decision affirming, modifying or reversing that of the lower court, unless of
course in the new decision of the trial court based on the new trial a sentence other than death is
imposed, in which case there would be no automatic review by us.
Let the record of this case be again remanded to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for new trial and
thereafter, for a new decision.
At the new trial, only the testimonies of witnesses for the defense, Ambrosio Tuble and Basilio Taborete,
were introduced. Appellant also presented documentary evidence relative to the conditional pardon
allegedly granted him. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found nothing in the newly adduced evidence
to disturb the decision of the People's Court, and, reproducing said decision, rendered judgment on
October 11, 1955, sentencing appellant to capital punishment. The case was again elevated to us for
automatic review and judgment and given the present docket number.
In the amended information filed before the People's Court, appellant was accused of treason on ten
counts, but the prosecution adduced evidence only on seven of them, namely, Counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10. The lower court found that Counts 1 and 2 were not proven, and convicted the accused on Counts 6,
7, 8, 9 and 10.

5 TRreason
The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation, appellant, who is a Filipino citizen, and
owing allegiance to the United States of America and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, gave the
enemy aid and comfort by rendering service with the Japanese Imperial Army as secret agent, informer
and spy, of its Detective Force in the province of Iloilo, and that in the performance of such service, he
participated actively and directly in the punitive expeditions periodically made by the Japanese forces in
the guerilla-infested areas of the province of Iloilo, and committed robberies, arson and mass-murders,
specifically as follows:
Count No. 6. Anent this Count, the amended information recites:
6. That on or about June 10, 1943, at the barrios of Baroc and Atabayan, municipality of Tigbauan, Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with
intent to adhere as he did adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give as he did give said
enemy aid and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force, Imperial
Japanese Army, and in company with other Filipino spies and several Japanese soldiers, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably arrest Vicente Garrido, Juan Tatlonghari, Clodovio
Trieco, Melchor Trieco, Cosme Tobias, Leoncio Tumamudtamud, Quirino Toranto, Napoleon Luceno,
Modesto Torremoro and Dionisio Belandrez on the charge that they were guerrilla soldiers and/or
sympathizers and did investigate, maltreat and torture them; that subsequently the persons abovementioned were taken away and were not seen or heard of since then; that on the occasion of the
aforementioned patrol, the above-named accused and his companions, with intent of gain and without
consent of the owners thereof, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously loot the house of
Jose T. Belandrez, taking therefrom genuine Philippine currency in the amount of P300; emergency notes
in the amount of P1,200; jewelry value at P500; clothing valued at P200; and other personal effects; and
from the house of Toribia Taleon, jewelry, watches, clothing and other personal effects with a total value
of P160 more or less.
Jose T. Belandrez, Salvador Toranto, Toribia Taleon and Maria Mendoza, corroborating one another,
testified that at dawn of June 10, 1943, appellant, accompanied by some Filipinos and Japanese soldiers,
went to the house of Jose T. Belandrez situated at Tigbauan, Iloilo, and took therefrom P1,200 in cash,
jewelry worth P300, and clothing valued at P200; that they also arrested Dionisio Belandrez, Modesto
Torremoro and Napoleon Luceno, members of the Bolo Battalion, an auxiliary unit of the guerrillas; that
since that fateful day, the said three members of the Bolo Battalion never returned.
Count No. 7. The amended information respecting this Count, reads as follows:
7. That on or about the 9th and 10th day of August, 1943, in the municipality of Tigbauan, Iloilo,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with
intent to adhere as he did adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give, as he did give said
enemy, aid and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force, Imperial
Japanese Army, and in company with other Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably arrest and apprehend several persons suspected of
guerrilla activities, among whom were Federico Tinamisan, Eustaquio Doga, Roque Tiologo, Salvador
Tedor, Tomas Trompeta, Agapito Trompeta, Andres Tayo, Victorio Tuante, Manuel Teano, Matias Tirante,
Rufo Tolate, Celedonio Tupino, Alfredo Trompeta, Hilarion Toga and several others, who were gathered in
the Chapel at barrio Napnapan, where the persons aforesaid were investigated, maltreated and tortured,
as a consequence of which Salvador Tedor died of the beating and torture inflicted upon him by the
herein accused and his companions; that the following morning about thirty-seven persons were taken to
the yard of Valentina Amandoron's house, where Jesus Astrologo, Carlos Palma, Filipino co-spies of the
accused, and the Japanese killed by beheading Andres Tai, Victorio Tuante, Roque Tiologo, Manuel Teano,
Matias Tirania, Pufo Tulato, Agapito Trompeta, Tomas Trompeta, Celedonio Tupino, Simeon Ledesma,
Hermenegildo Taleon, Marcelo Turid, Magdaleno Turid, Enrique Turid, Jose Tamon, Cornelio Taghap,
Eustaquio Doga, Eugenio (LNU), Francisco (LNU) Lucio (LNU), Juan (LNU), Casimiro (LNU), Gorteo (LNU),

and several others whose names are unknown, while Alfredo Trompeta and Hilarion Toga were struck and
wounded on their necks but miraculously escaped death.
Six witnesses testified on this Count, namely, Severa Gua, Natividad Duga, Alfredo Trompeta, Hilario
Taghap and Valentina Amandoron who, corroborating one another, stated that on August 9 or 10, 1943,
which was a Monday, at about six o'clock in the evening, while Eustaquio Duga and his family were at
their home in Tigbauan, Iloilo, he saw Japanese soldiers and some Filipinos approaching their house; that
Eustaquio Duga notified his wife and they immediately started to flee; that unfortunately, they were
overtaken by the Japanese soldiers, and Eustaquio Duga was arrested by herein appellant who was in
company with said Japanese soldiers; that Eustaquio Duga was taken to the nearby barrio of Napnapan;
that sometime later, Severa Gua found the dead body of Eustaquio Duga, with his head almost severed,
among other corpses in the yard of the house of Valentina Amandoron.
On the same day, while Alfredo Trompeta and his companion Roque Teologo were walking in a barrio
road in Napnapan, Tigbauan, Iloilo, they were arrested by Japanese soldiers who were with the appellant;
that Trompeta and Teologo were taken to the barrio of Ermita, of the same municipality, where they were
investigated together with about thirty persons who were suspected as guerrillas; thence they were
brought to the house of Valentina Amandoron where appellant and his companions killed in cold blood
Trompeta's companions as well as these persons who were brought there earlier. Among the twenty-five
persons killed on that occasion, were Andres Tayo, Tomas Trompeta, Rufo Tolato, Roque Teologo, Jose
Taucon and Matias Tiranea.
Count No. 8. The information equally recites:
8. That on or about August 12, 1943, in the municipality of Leon, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did
adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give as he did give said enemy aid and comfort, in
his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army; and in company
with other Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
treasonably arrest Cosme Calacasan, Nazario Calimutan, Alberto Caborique, Nazario Calacasan, Marcos
Sobrevega, Jose Canillas, Aurelio Calacasan, Graciano (LNU), Juan (LNU), and three others, names
unknown, on the charge that the persons aforesaid were guerrilla soldiers or guerrilla sympathizers; that
thereafter these persons were taken to barrio Taal, municipality of San Miguel, where the accused and
his companions set fire to and burned several houses in the aforesaid barrio; and later to barrio
Baguingin, municipality of Leon, where the above-named accused and his companions investigated,
maltreated and tortured them; that the above-named accused further adhering to the enemy did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably, and with evident premeditation and
treachery, bayonetted to death Cosme Calacasan, while tied to a tree with hands tied behind his back;
while Nazario Calimutan was bayonetted and killed in the same manner by Jesus Astrologo, Filipino cospy of the herein accused; while Graciano (LNU) and Juan (LNU) and two others (names unknown) were
bayonetted to death by the Filipino and Japanese companions of the accused; that after the killing of the
aforesaid persons, the above-named accused and his companions did gather the corpses of their victims
in the house of Juan Caya and thereafter did set fire to and burn that house the dead bodies inside.
Aurelio Calacasan and Jose Canillas, corroborating each other, testified that at about eight o'clock in the
morning of August 12, 1943, while Aurelio Calacasan, Cosme Calacasan, Anazario Calimutan, Alberto
Caborique, Nazario Calacasan, Marcos Sobrevieja and Jose Canillas and several others were in the barrio
of Anonang, Leon, Iloilo, they were arrested by Japanese soldiers and taken to the barrio of Taal, of the
same municipality, where they saw appellant and his companions. After setting afire the houses in said
barrio, appellant and his companions brought the prisoners to barrio Agboy, of the same municipality,
where they were investigated regarding their guerilla activities or connections; that during the
investigations, appellant stabbed to death Cosme Calacasan who was a member of the Bolo Battalion,
an auxiliary unit of the guerrillas; that after several prisoners were killed, their corpses were gathered
and placed in a house which was set on fire.

6 TRreason
Count No. 9. Concerning this Count, the amended information recites:
9. That on or about August 12, 1943, in the municipality of Leon, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did
adhere to the enemy and with treasonable intent to give as he did give said enemy aid and comfort, in
his capacity as agent, informer, spy of the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army, and in company
with other Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
treasonably conduct and carry out a raid against and mass arrest of persons suspected as guerrilla
soldiers and sympathizers, as a consequence of which, about eighty persons, male and female, both
young and old were arrested and gathered in a schoolhouse and chapel in the barrio of Buenavista, and
thereat investigated, maltreated and tortured by the herein accused and his companions; that
subsequently about thirty persons including women and children were taken to the house of Aquilino
Sales, where about fourteen persons were bayonetted and killed by Japanese soldiers, namely, Julia
Cabilitasan, Mercedes Calopez, Andrea Cahipo, Eustaquia Cabilinga, Isabel Canag, Rosalia Calopez, Luz
Caldito, Estelita Camorahan, Roman Cabilinga, Tomas Canag, Luis Cabalfin, Juan Cabalfin, Macario
Cabilitasan and Aurelio Caldito; while Paulina Cantara, Alejandro Calsona and Bienvenido Cabankalan
received and sustained bayonet wounds but survived and were able to escape after the house of
aforesaid Aquilino Sales was set on fire and burned by said patrol of Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers.
Aquilina Cabilitasan, Bienvenido Cabankalan, Alejandro Calsena and Perpetua Canag, who testified for
the prosecution, corroborating one another, stated that at about eight o'clock in the morning of August
12, 1943, several residents of barrio, Buenavista, Leon, Iloilo, were arrested by the appellant, who was
armed with revolver and bayonet, and his companions consisting of Filipinos and Japanese soldiers; that
said barrio residents were brought to the barrio schoolhouse where they were investigated. During the
investigation, Julia Cabilitasan was singled out by the appellant who tied her hands behind her back and
brought her under a "doldol" (kapok) tree, near a chapel, where she was stripped of all her clothings
until she was naked. Appellant investigated her regarding the whereabouts of her husband who was a
USAFFE soldier. Appellant, after severely beating Julia Cabilitasan, brought her to the house of Aquilino
Sales where there were other Filipino prisoners. Shortly thereafter, appellant and his companions started
the massacre of the prisoners. Appellant stabbed Julia Cabilitasan three times with a bayonet. In that
massacre, fourteen persons including women and children were killed. Among those killed were Julia
Cabilitasan, Macario Cabilitasan, Roman Cabelenga, Andrea Cahipos and Julia Calpit. Later, said house
was set on fire.
Count No. 10. Lastly, the amended information regarding this Count, recites:
10. That on or about March 18, 1944, in the municipalities of Guimbal and Tubugan, Iloilo, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T. Villanueva, with intent to
adhere as he did adhere to the enemy, and with treasonable intent to give as he did give said enemy aid
and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army,
and in company with other Filipino spies, Bureau of Constabulary and Japanese soldiers, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably arrest Rosalio Tambirao, Joaquin Escorido, Carolina
Escorido, Romero Escorido, Edgardo Escorido, Editha Escorido, Sofia Tambiras, Raul Tabanda, Nestor
Tabanda, Elena Gierza, Natividad Gersalino, Jovita Gersalino, Ernesto Tambirao, Ruly Tambirao, Jesusa
Jimenez, Eustaquio Tortugalete, Paz Tabora, Basilisa Taborete, Gloria Escorido, Ciriaco Gierza and several
others with unknown names on the charge that the persons aforesaid were either guerrilla soldiers,
sympathizers and supporters; that the aforesaid persons were then taken to the house of Jacinto
Toborete, where the herein accused, did then and their investigate, maltreat, or otherwise torture
Basilisa Taborete, Gloria Escorido and Eustaquia Tortugalete in an effort to make them confess as to their
connection with the guerrilla movement and the whereabouts of the guerrilla soldiers; that subsequently
the herein accused further adhering to the enemy did deliver to a Japanese executioner Juan Gelario,
Felipe Tanato, David Garnica, Juana Tabacoran, Jesusa Jimenez and Luz Tabiana, who were all executed
and kill one after another; that the killing of Juana Tabacoran, Jesusa Jimenez and Luz Tabiana took place

shortly after they were abused and raped by the Japanese and BC soldiers in the house of Jacinto
Taborete; that while this was going on, Jovita Gersalino and Lourdes Tabanda were taken to another
house by the herein accused, Filemon Palacios, Jr., Vicente Tolosa and a Japanese soldier, where they
were abused and raped; that subsequently the persons gathered were asked who of them were relatives
of Tranquilino Geonanga for they would be released and when an old woman answered that they were all
relatives of Tranquilino Geonanga, the Japanese soldiers at once started to inflict and deliver bayonet
thrusts on the persons gathered and as a consequence of which about thirty of them were killed and
several were wounded: that subsequently, the herein accused and his companions proceeded to barrio
Buluagan, where one Saturnino (LNU) was arrested, investigated, maltreated and tortured by the herein
accused and later killed by the Japanese.
Gloria Escorido, Basilisa Gierza and Ciriaco Gierza, testifying in support of this Count, and corroborating
one another, stated that at about seven o'clock in the morning of March 16, 1944, while the appellant
and several Japanese soldiers were on a punitive expedition in the barrio of Miadan, Guimbal, Iloilo, they
arrested the barrio residents who fled to the Dalihi creek in Tubongan, Iloilo; that the barrio residents,
who were about fifty persons, were brought to the barrio of Laguna, Tubongan, Iloilo, were they were
investigated and maltreated; that during the investigation, appellant tied the feet of Gloria Escorido,
hanged her with her head downward and beat her with the branch of an "aguho" tree; that appellant
likewise brought to the house of Jacinto Batorete three females, namely, Luz Tabiana, Jesusa Jimenez and
Juana Tabiana where the said girls were abused by the appellant and his companions; that appellant also
bayoneted to death Sofia Tambirao for the simple reason that she was the cousin of Tranquilino
Geonanga, an officer of the guerrillas; that appellant and his companions massacred on that occasion
around thirty persons, among whom were Jovita Gersalino, Carolina Escorido, Romero Escorido, Sofia
Tambirao, and Edgardo Escorido.
We have, therefore, that appellant not only participated actively in the punitive raids made by the
Japanese soldiers and in arresting and killing Filipino Guerrillas, but personally manhandled Gloria
Escorido, a girl barely 16 years of age at the time (Count 10), and killed in cold blood Cosme Calacasan
by bayoneting him three times (Count 8), Julia Cabilitasan by likewise bayoneting her three times, with
the added ignominy of stripping her stark naked moments before killing her (Count 9), and Sofia
Tambirao (Count 10.) These specific overt acts of appellant as testified to by eyewitnesses who have
survived the harrowing massacres, speak eloquently that his adherence to the enemy in giving it aid and
comfort, was accompanied by cruelty and ruthlessness, in wanton disregard of the feelings and decency
of his fellow citizens.
The foregoing facts were not impugned by any evidence for appellant, his defense in the lower court
merely consisting of (1) his denial of the overt acts imputed upon him, and (2) that if he ever served in
the detective force of the Japanese Army since January 1st, 1944, it was because he was made to accept
the position under duress, and that his acceptance of such position was for the good of the people, he
having saved many Filipino lives from Japanese atrocities.
We have carefully analyzed the evidence on record because of the seriousness of the charges against
appellant, and we find that the evidence for the prosecution is overwhelming, such that appellant's
counsel de officio instead of filing a brief, made a manifestation dated November 29, 1955, stating that
"after a thorough study of the records of the case, he finds nothing therein sufficient to disturb the
decisions of the People's Court and of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo imposing capital punishment on
the accused." Said counsel further stated that "The accused's only evidence which directly attacked the
government's proofs was his denial of what several witnesses testified to." This manifestation was
considered by this Tribunal as appellant's brief, in its resolution of December 6, 1955. Certainly mere
denial by appellant cannot prevail upon the positive assertion of the witnesses for the government
establishing incriminating facts, for it is a well settled rule of evidence that as between positive and
negative testimony, the former deserves more weight and credit.

7 TRreason
Anent the defense of duress allegedly exerted by the Japanese upon appellant for which he had to serve
in the detective force of the Japanese Army, we agree with the Solicitor General that "except the lone
and self-serving testimony of the appellant that he was coerced to cooperate with and serve the
Japanese soldiers, there is not an iota of proof that he was in fact compelled or coerced by the Japanese.
Much less is there any evidence showing that the alleged compulsion or coercion was grave and
imminent."
Duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a defense, must be present, imminent and
impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily
harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. (16 C. J., 91).
To be available as a defense, the fear must be well-founded, an immediate and actual danger of death or
great bodily harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. It would be a most dangerous rule if
a defendant could shield himself from prosecution for crime by merely setting up a fear from or because
of a threat of a third person. (Wharton's Criminal Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 384).
Fear as an excuse for crime has never been received by the law. No man, from fear or circumstances to
himself has the right to make himself a party to committing mischief upon mankind (Lord Denman in
Reg. vs. Tyler, 8 Car. and P. (Eng.) 616, vs. Duddely, L. R. 14, Q. B. Div. (Eng.) 273).
When the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the retaking of lost testimonies,
appellant attempted to give the case a new twist by filing a motion to quash on the ground that the
pardon extended him has already extinguished his criminal liability and that his conviction by the
People's Court had placed him in jeopardy. This motion was denied, but during the trial appellant was
allowed to present documentary evidence relative to the clemency extended him, consisting of Exhibit 1
which is a certified copy of his conditional pardon; Exhibit 2, a certified copy of the letter of the Legal
Assistant of the President dated June 30, 1953, addressed to the Director of Prisons; Exhibit 3 the motion
to withdraw appeal filed before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo; and Exhibit 4, the Tribunal's resolution
of September 21, 1953, granting said withdrawal. In addition, appellant presented an Exhibit 5 the

decision of the People's Court in the case of People vs. Jesus Astrologo, dated December 11, 1947,
sentencing him to death; Exhibit 6 the conditional pardon extended to said accused dated June 27, 1953;
and Exhibit 7 the letter of the Legal Assistant of the Office of the President to the Director of Prisons, to
show that said Jesus Astrologo who is now enjoying his freedom by reason of the pardon extended, has
been allowed by this Tribunal to withdraw his appeal pending review of his death sentence.
Regarding the alleged pardon granted to appellant, we reiterate our ruling in our resolution of October
19, 1953, hereinbefore quoted. As to appellant's contention respecting the applicability of the Astrologo
case, we find it untenable, for the Astrologo case (88 Phil., 423) was elevated to us for review on March
4, 1948; he filed his brief on October 21, 1949, and we rendered judgment on March 30, 1951,
commuting the sentence to life imprisonment for lack of sufficient vote. The pardon granted him on June
27, 1953, or more than two years after the final judgment, was therefore in order, and cannot be invoked
by herein appellant as a precedent.
As to the payment of indemnity in the amount of P2,000 to the respective heirs of each of the victims of
appellant, the Solicitor-General recommends that this amount imposed by the lower court be increased
to P6,000. We find this recommendation to be correct, as it is in consonance with the repeated decisions
of this Tribunal on the matter; hence the decision of the lower court should be amended accordingly.
Furthermore, although the facts of the case verily justify the imposition of death penalty, yet, for lack of
sufficient votes said penalty should be, as it is hereby commuted to reclusion perpetua, in accordance
with law.
Wherefore, and with the modifications above indicated, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs.
\