G.R. No. L-4570 July 31, 1953
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMO PACHECO, alias EMONG, alias GUEMO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Maximo Pacheco, a Filipino citizen, was tried for treason in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan under an amended information containing two counts. The first count alleged that on January 2, 1945, in Polo, Bulacan, he aided the Japanese in the arrest, maltreatment, and shooting of Ceferino Rivera. The second count alleged that in February 1945, in Manila, he aided in the arrest and torture of Judge Eugenio Angeles by pointing him out to the Japanese as a guerrilla major from Polo, Bulacan. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine of P10,000, and indemnity to the heirs of Ceferino Rivera. The defendant appealed, raising issues regarding the Bulacan court’s jurisdiction over the second count (which occurred in Manila) and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had jurisdiction to try the second count of treason, which alleged acts committed in Manila.
2. Whether the prosecution witnesses were credible and the evidence sufficient to prove the overt acts of treason beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Bulacan court. Treason is a single offense that may be committed through several overt acts occurring in different provinces. Under Section 9, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, such an offense may be prosecuted in any province where any essential ingredient occurred. Republic Act No. 311 , which dissolved the People’s Court and transferred pending cases to the courts of first instance where the offenses were alleged to have been committed, did not alter these established rules on venue. To hold otherwise would risk multiple prosecutions for the same offense.
2. On the Merits and Credibility of Witnesses:
– First Count (Death of Ceferino Rivera): The combined testimonies of Isidro Rivera, Dominga Camatos, Antonio de Guzman, Federico San Juan, and Regino Galicia established that Pacheco participated in the arrest of Ceferino Rivera in Polo, Bulacan, and in his subsequent execution. Antonio de Guzman specifically identified Pacheco as the one who shot Rivera. Minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were deemed explainable and did not undermine their overall credibility. Pacheco’s denial and claim of being a guerrilla were insufficient to overcome the positive identification and were not a defense to treason.
– Second Count (Arrest and Torture of Judge Eugenio Angeles): The testimonies of Judge Eugenio Angeles, his son Gregorio Angeles, and Dr. Ciriaco Santiago proved that Pacheco was among the armed men who apprehended Judge Angeles in Manila and pointed him out as a guerrilla leader to the Japanese, leading to his torture. The apprehension was witnessed by Gregorio Angeles and Dr. Santiago, satisfying the two-witness rule for the overt act. Judge Angeles’s detailed account of the torture, while uncorroborated by another witness for that specific act, was accepted as part of the continuous transaction initiated by the proven arrest.
The Supreme Court found no reason to doubt the veracity of the prosecution witnesses and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding Pacheco guilty of treason. The penalty imposed was in accordance with Section 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision was affirmed with costs.