GR L 1656; (January, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1656; January 7, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMAN VILO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Roman Vilo, was convicted by the People’s Court of the complex crime of treason with murder and sentenced to death and a fine. The conviction was based on overt acts committed in 1944 in Cebu, including the apprehension, torture, and killing of individuals connected with the guerrilla resistance movement against the Japanese occupation. The defense admitted the commission of these acts but pleaded that the appellant acted under duress, having been previously arrested and tortured by the Japanese and later forced to join the puppet Philippine Constabulary.
ISSUE
1. Whether the plea of duress is valid to exculpate the appellant.
2. Whether the crime was properly classified as treason with murder.
3. What penalty should be imposed, considering the applicable law on the number of Justices required to impose the death penalty.
RULING
1. The plea of duress is not valid. The appellant’s prior arrest and forced enlistment did not constitute an immediate threat compelling him to commit the specific acts of treason about two years later. The brutal manner of the killings (e.g., bayoneting, slashing knees) was inconsistent with acting under compulsion.
2. The crime was not properly classified as a complex crime of treason with murder. The killings were charged as elements of treason and are absorbed by it; they cannot be separately punished or used to increase the penalty under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant is guilty of simple treason.
3. The death penalty cannot be imposed. Although eight Justices believed the appellant deserved death, one Justice dissented. Under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code (requiring unanimity for the death penalty), the penalty is lowered to reclusion perpetua. The Court, by majority, held that the Judiciary Act of 1948 (which would allow imposition by eight Justices) could not be applied retroactively to this case, as it would be ex post facto regarding a substantive right of the accused. The judgment is modified to impose reclusion perpetua.
AI Generated by Armztrong.