G.R. No. L-1922; April 27, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEODORICO MATIAS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Teodorico Matias, a Filipino citizen, was charged before the People’s Court with treason on four counts. The court found him guilty on three counts (Counts 1, 2, and 4) and sentenced him to 15 years of reclusion temporal, a fine of P2,000, and costs. Count 1 charged him with adhering to and giving aid and comfort to the enemy by joining the Kaigun Jutai, a Japanese-sponsored military organization in Lamitan, Zamboanga, aimed at suppressing guerrillas. Members were Filipinos, armed and uniformed by the Japanese Navy, and appellant participated in drills, guard duty, and campaigns. Count 2 involved the apprehension and maltreatment of guerrillas Maximo Sardan and Bernabe Adela on August 11, 1943, in a barrio of Lamitan, where appellant and other Kaigun Jutai members raided houses, captured, tied, investigated, and beat the guerrillas before taking them to a Japanese garrison. Count 4 charged appellant with participating in an attack alongside Japanese soldiers and Kaigun Jutai members against a guerrilla concentration in Lamitan on June 17, 1943. Appellant denied the allegations in Counts 2 and 4, presenting an alibi that he was confined in a Zamboanga hospital during those periods due to a gunshot wound, but his testimony conflicted with that of a physician regarding the wound’s location.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented sufficiently establishes the guilt of Teodorico Matias for the crime of treason on the three counts.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The evidence for Count 1 clearly established appellant’s adherence to the enemy through his membership and active participation in the Kaigun Jutai, which was proven by witness testimony, and appellant did not deny his membership. For Counts 2 and 4, the testimony of witnesses, including Bernabe Adela and Nicolas Colasio, satisfied the two-witness rule for treason and positively identified appellant. Their credibility was upheld by the trial court, and their impartiality was not impugned. Appellant’s denial and alibi were rejected as they could not prevail against the positive declarations of witnesses, and the alibi was suspect due to inconsistencies between his account and the physician’s testimony regarding the wound. The Court found no reason to reverse the trial court’s findings of fact and held the sentence imposed sufficient for the treasonous acts committed.