GR L 2956; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2956; May 23, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eleuterio Icaro, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Eleuterio Icaro, a Filipino citizen, was convicted of treason by the Court of First Instance of Laguna and sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine of P10,000, and accessory penalties. The trial court found that during the latter part of 1944 and early 1945, while the United States, the Philippines, and Allied nations were at war with Japan, Icaro, owing allegiance to both America and the Commonwealth, openly adhered to the enemy and gave it aid and comfort. Specifically, while armed and in the company of other Filipinos and Japanese soldiers, he participated in raids and arrests of guerrilla suspects. These arrests included Norberto Ungkiatco on December 23, 1944, and Emilio Biscocho, Santiago Nipal, Victor Vergara, Valentin Vergara, and Vicente Ele on January 15, 1945. With the exception of Emilio Biscocho, the other arrested persons were never seen again.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence for the prosecution sufficiently proves the appellant’s guilt of treason in conformity with the two-witness rule required in treason cases.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The Court found that the two-witness rule was satisfied. The arrest of Norberto Ungkiatco was testified to by two prosecution witnesses: Norberto Ungkiatco himself and Matias Mendoza. The arrest of Emilio Biscocho and others on January 15, 1945, was testified to by three prosecution witnesses: Emilio Biscocho, Anselmo Maranan, and Tranquilino Martinez. Another arrest (of Andres Ramos) was confirmed by two witnesses: Aurora Azucena and Crispin Aniceta. The Court found the prosecution witnesses—townmates of the appellant—truthful and had no reason to doubt their testimonies, which were given years after the events. The appellant’s defense of alibi and denial could not prevail over this positive, multiple-witness testimony. The Court also held that while there was no direct proof the appellant was a Makapili, such formal adherence was unnecessary as adherence to the enemy could be inferred from his overt acts of arresting guerrilla suspects while armed and in the company of armed Japanese soldiers, especially given the subsequent disappearance of most arrestees. The appealed judgment was affirmed.