G.R. No. L-2311; May 21, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN NADURATA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Benjamin Nadurata was charged with treason on five counts before the People’s Court. The court dismissed counts 1 to 4 for lack of proof but convicted him on count 5, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, a fine, and costs. Count 5 alleged that on July 7, 1944, in Oas, Albay, the appellant and his men treasonably arrested, tortured, and killed Restituto Seda, Angel Reiteran, and Ramon Rebusquillo, guerrilla suspects, with Rebusquillo surviving. The prosecution presented Ramon Rebusquillo, who testified that constabulary soldiers arrested him and two others, presented them to appellant (a captain), and that they were investigated and tortured by lieutenants about the whereabouts of guerrilla leaders Col. Zabat and Maj. Llenerizas. Appellant, with soldiers, then took them to a mountain top where he ordered a lieutenant to shoot Seda (who died after a second shot), and after Reiteran attempted to escape and was shot, appellant ordered Rebusquillo shot. Rebusquillo was wounded, thrown into a pit, but survived. Witness Alipio Red, a guerrilla lieutenant, testified he witnessed the shootings from about 25 meters away, seeing appellant order the shootings, though he admitted not hearing the orders. The defense presented appellant, who testified he was the acting provincial commander of Albay constabulary. He stated that after constabulary officers were killed by the Llenerizas group, he led a patrol to arrest them. His men arrested nine persons, and after investigation, three (Rebusquillo, Seda, Reiteran) were identified as Llenerizas men and held, while others were released. The three prisoners offered to lead them to Llenerizas’s hideout. While proceeding up a mountain, the advance guard, which had the prisoners, shot them as they attempted to escape, without any order from appellant. Defense witnesses, including former Governor Julian Locsin, Jr., corroborated that Llenerizas and his men were feared bandits, that appellant had contact with and supplied recognized guerrillas, and that the constabulary was enforcing a rice export ban when the initial killings occurred.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Benjamin Nadurata is guilty of treason as charged in count 5.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted Benjamin Nadurata. The Court found that a careful reflection on the evidence engendered a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The principal prosecution witness, Ramon Rebusquillo, admitted he was arrested by constabulary men without mention of appellant, that appellant did not see or hear the investigation, and that the investigation was only about the whereabouts of guerrilla leaders Zabat and Llenerizas, not about Rebusquillo’s own guerrilla activities. The Court noted improbabilities in Rebusquillo’s testimony, such as walking a long distance after being severely wounded. The testimony of Alipio Red was deemed doubtful, as it was improbable he could follow and observe appellant’s large patrol undetected, he did not relate the incident except to one person, and he admitted not hearing any order from appellant. The release of another suspect, Carlos Sabile, after similar questioning cast doubt on why the three victims would not have been similarly released if they had no knowledge. The testimony of another prosecution witness, Fernando de Leon, was found lacking in credence. The defense evidence, including testimony from the provincial governor, supported appellant’s claim that he was pursuing bandits (the Llenerizas group) and that the prisoners were shot during an escape attempt without his order. The Court also noted appellant’s uncontradicted claim of supplying recognized guerrillas. Given the reasonable doubt, the appellant was acquitted.