GR L 1789; (July, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1789; July 29, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISMAEL AQUIVIDO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant, Ismael Aquivido, a Filipino citizen, was charged with treason on three counts for acts allegedly committed in February 1945 in San Pablo, Laguna. The charges included joining the Makapili organization, cooperating with the Japanese Army in apprehending guerrilla suspects, commandeering vehicles and supplies, burning houses, and fighting American and guerrilla forces. Specifically, he was implicated in the rounding up of over 600 civilians on February 24, 1945, the identification and segregation of guerrilla suspects from that group, and the subsequent massacre of those suspects by Japanese soldiers. The evidence presented at trial showed that Aquivido was seen armed and dressed like a Makapili, consorting with Makapili members at their headquarters, and escorting bound men to that headquarters. On the day of the massacre, he was positioned near the Makapili chief, Agripino Calavia, as civilians filed out of a church, while Calavia identified guerrilla suspects. Aquivido did not testify or present evidence in his defense.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant, Ismael Aquivido, is guilty of treason based on the evidence presented, particularly in light of the requirement of the two-witness rule to prove an overt act of treason.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the People’s Court finding Ismael Aquivido guilty of treason. The Court held that membership in the Makapili organization, which was judicially noted as an organization aimed at aiding the Japanese forces, could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. These circumstances included Aquivido’s pre-war affiliation with the Sakdal, his confiscation of a civilian’s firearm during the occupation, his association with Makapilis, his being armed at a time when only enemy collaborators bore firearms, and his presence and armed posture alongside Makapili members during the identification and segregation of guerrilla suspects on February 24, 1945. His active participation in that event constituted adherence to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort. The two-witness rule was satisfied by the testimonies of multiple witnesses who saw him during the overt acts. The sentence of reclusion perpetua, a fine, and accessory penalties was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.