G.R. No. L-2236; May 16, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BLAS CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Blas Cruz, a Filipino citizen, was accused of treason before the People’s Court on six counts. Counts 3 and 6 were abandoned by the prosecution. Count 2 was dismissed due to only one witness identifying the defendant, and Count 5 was dismissed because only one witness testified to his participation. He was convicted on Counts 1 and 4. The evidence established that Cruz was a member of the Makapili organization, which aided the Japanese against Fil-American forces and guerrillas, demonstrating his adherence to the enemy. Specifically, for Count 1, on November 29, 1944, Cruz, along with armed companions, arrested Jose Cruz in Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, tied his hands, took him away in a banca, and he was never heard from again. This was proved by witnesses Marcela Raymundo and Justa. For Count 4, on December 10, 1944, Cruz and armed companions went to the house of spouses Pedro Natividad and Ceferina Raymundo in Ugong, Pasig, maltreated Pedro (a guerrilla suspect), took him to a Makapili-occupied house, later returned to search the house for firearms, took Ceferina’s jewels, and brought her to their headquarters where she saw her husband being maltreated; Pedro Natividad was never heard from again. This was proved by the testimony of Ceferina Raymundo and her son Deogracias. The defendant did not present evidence on Count 1, claiming he misunderstood the joint trial procedures for his group (Group Z), and his testimony was confined to Count 4. The trial court found him guilty, applying the mitigating circumstance of lack of education, and sentenced him to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, a fine, and costs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Blas Cruz of treason based on the evidence presented for Counts 1 and 4, and in its handling of the trial procedure and assessment of the mitigating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. On the procedural issue, the Court held the appellant’s claim that he failed to present evidence due to a misunderstanding of the joint trial was groundless, as the trial was a continuation previously announced, and counsel could have inquired or sought to reopen the case but did not. This point could not be raised for the first time on appeal. On the merits, the Court found the overt acts in both counts sufficiently proved by credible witnesses. The minor contradictions in the testimonies for Count 4 did not detract from their essential credibility and even indicated sincerity. The Court agreed with the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility. Regarding the penalty, while the Supreme Court held that lack of education should not generally be considered mitigating in treason cases, it declined to increase the penalty imposed by the trial judge, who had observed the defendant, as Cruz did not appear to have taken part in the killing of the victims. The appealed judgment was affirmed with costs.