GR L 2315; (December, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2315. December 29, 1950.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOROTEO ABATAYO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Doroteo Abatayo was charged with treason before the People’s Court. The prosecution proceeded only on the fifth count, alleging that on or about December 6, 1944, in Minglanilla, Cebu, he, together with Japanese soldiers and other members of the Japanese-sponsored constabulary, went on patrol to apprehend guerrilla suspects, resulting in the arrest of Pedro and Jose Abellanosa and the killing of one “John Doe.” During the trial, after the prosecution rested, the defense moved to dismiss for lack of evidence. Upon denial of the motion, the defense waived the right to present evidence. The trial court convicted Abatayo and sentenced him to 15 years of reclusion temporal, a fine, and costs. He appealed, contesting the proof of his Filipino citizenship and the sufficiency of evidence identifying him and establishing treason.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved (1) the appellant’s Filipino citizenship, and (2) his guilt for the crime of treason based on the overt acts alleged.
RULING
Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The prosecution proved both the appellant’s citizenship and his treasonable acts beyond reasonable doubt.
1. Citizenship: Appellant’s Filipino citizenship was established through his thumbmarked and signed statements (Exhibits A and B) attesting to it, presented by a jail information clerk. His failure to rebut this evidence or provide a counter-thumbmark for comparison supported the finding.
2. Treason: The testimony of witnesses Teotima and Gloria Abellanosa was credible and sufficient. They positively identified appellant, who was in Japanese uniform and armed, as the one who tied up and threatened them, actively participated in searching for and arresting the Abellanosa brothers (known guerrilla suspects), and was later seen leading the captives away. The brothers were never seen again. Appellant’s active participation in the patrol and the arrest, with intent to aid the enemy, constituted adherence to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort, fulfilling the elements of treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The defense of mere accompaniment without guidance was rejected.
AI Generated by Armztrong.