GR L 5360; (January, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5360; January 30, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEANDRO DIMAPILIS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Leandro Dimapilis (also referred to as Alejandro or Leonardo Dimapilis), was charged with treason on four counts. The Court of First Instance of Batangas found him guilty on count three and sentenced him to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, a fine of P5,000, plus costs, while dismissing the other three counts. The prosecution evidence established that in December 1944, on a market day in Tanauan, Batangas, the accused, accompanied by a group of Makapilis and Japanese soldiers, went to the market and approached the store of Mrs. Amelia Laurel, wife of Dr. Brigido Carandang. The accused pointed out Dr. Carandang to the Japanese soldiers as the physician and supplier of the guerrillas. Consequently, the Japanese soldiers arrested Dr. Carandang and took him to the garrison in Tanauan. Dr. Carandang never returned home and was never seen again. This account was corroborated by the testimonies of Moises Carandang and Porfirio Laurel. The accused denied the accusation, claiming he lived peacefully, aided guerrillas, worked as a policeman after liberation, was arrested and investigated by the CIC of the U.S. Army but was released, and that his prosecution was due to the resentment of a personal enemy, Alejandro Austria, who had demanded money from him.
ISSUE
Whether the accused is guilty of treason for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by denouncing Dr. Brigido Carandang to the Japanese forces.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of treason. The Court held that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Moises Carandang and Porfirio Laurel were credible and sufficient to establish that the accused, as a Makapili, engaged in activities furthering the enemy’s war effort by denouncing Dr. Carandang. The Court rejected the defense’s attempts to discredit the witnesses based on alleged discrepancies, noting that the witnesses’ explanations for their statements were reasonable. The Court also dismissed the defense’s claim that the indictment was motivated by personal resentment, as the prosecution’s case rested on the credible testimonies of the two witnesses. Furthermore, the Court held that Exhibit “4” (a document from the CIC of the U.S. Army) did not exonerate the accused and had no binding effect on the courts. The penalty imposed by the lower court was affirmed.