G.R. No. L-778; October 10, 1947.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NEMESIO L. AGPANGAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Nemesio L. Agpangan, was accused of treason committed between December 1944 and January 1945 in the Province of Laguna. The information contained a single count alleging that on or about December 20, 1944, Agpangan, a member of the pro-Japanese Ganap organization, joined the Pampars, a military organization supporting the Imperial Japanese Army. It was alleged he was equipped with a rifle, underwent ten days of military training, and from about January 12 to March 15, 1945, was assigned weekly guard duty at a garrison. His orders were to shoot any escaping Filipino prisoners or any approaching guerrilla or American soldier.
At trial, three prosecution witnesses testified:
1. Tomas C. Serrano, a guerrilla lieutenant, testified he saw Agpangan doing guard duty at the Japanese garrison in Siniloan from November 1944, armed with a rifle and bayonet. He stated Agpangan made civilians bow at the garrison entrance, confiscated foodstuffs for the Japanese, and participated in patrols and arrests of suspected guerrillas. Serrano was arrested on March 25, 1945, by a group that included Agpangan and was among prisoners taken for execution, but he escaped during an American air raid. He identified Agpangan as a Makapili member and noted that Agpangan’s son, Bienvenido, was among those executed.
2. Mauricio Adaro testified he saw Agpangan mounting guard at the Siniloan garrison “many times” in December 1944, confiscating food supplies, and participating in the arrest of Adaro’s son.
3. Delfin Redor, the former mayor of Siniloan and a guerrilla captain, testified that Agpangan, his barrio lieutenant, belonged to the Pampar Makapili. He saw Agpangan on guard duty at the Makapili garrison armed with a bayonet and accompanied Japanese on raids outside the poblacion to commandeer food.

ISSUE

The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the defendant’s guilt for treason beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically complying with the two-witness rule required for establishing treasonous overt acts under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the constitutional standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and, crucially, did not satisfy the two-witness rule for treason.
The Court analyzed each allegation:
1. Membership in Ganap and joining Pampars: No witness testified Agpangan was a Ganap member. Only witness Redor stated he belonged to Pampar but did not describe its nature.
2. Being equipped with a specific rifle and undergoing training: No evidence was presented to support this allegation.
3. Assignment to guard duty and orders to shoot: While witnesses Serrano and Adaro testified they saw Agpangan on guard duty “many times,” their testimonies lacked specificity as to dates and times. The Court found no way to conclude they were testifying about the same specific overt act, as required by the two-witness rule. The “many times” mentioned could refer to different, non-coinciding instances.
The Court further clarified that the act of doing guard duty, by itself, is not a complete overt act of treason unless it is part of the continuous act of being an active member of a traitorous organization. The prosecution failed to prove by two witnesses any specific, identifiable treasonous overt act as charged. Consequently, the constitutional presumption of innocence was not overcome, and the appellant was acquitted.