El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Lupera

Armed adherence to the enemy through leading arrests, tying, confinement, and investigation of guerrillas constitutes treason when each overt act is proved beyond reasonable doubt by at least two witnesses, and such direct positive identification prevails over general denial, claimed physical infirmity not amounting to immobilization, and an improbable alibi.

Rufino Lupera, alias "Pinong Pilay," was a native and longtime resident of barrio Sukat, Muntinglupa, Rizal, well known since childhood to his neighbors and townmates. The prosecution was for treason committed during the Japanese occupation, a charge tried before the former People's Court with an amended information containing seven counts.

During the Japanese occupation, Rufino Lupera, alias "Pinong Pilay," was repeatedly seen armed and in the company of Japanese soldiers in Sukat, Muntinglupa, Rizal. Between 4:00 and 6:00 in the early morning of December 25, 1944, Lupera, himself armed, accompanied by Japanese soldiers and armed Filipinos, actively led the group in going to homes, calling residents by name, entering houses first, and arresting Eligio Salvador, Cirilo Lopena, Filomeno Landrito, and many others. He pointed out Cirilo Lopera to his Japanese companions as a guerrilla, aided in tying Cirilo Lopera and Eligio Salvador at arrest, and actively participated in investigating Cirilo Lopera and Eligio Salvador for guerrilla activities while they were confined in the Japanese garrison at the Sukat Barrio School. Those arrested were never seen or heard of again, and the remains of Eligio Salvador and Cirilo Lopena were found buried in a shallow pit at the back of the school yard at Sukat, Muntinglupa, Rizal on December 27, 1944.

Thereafter, at around 11:00 p.m. on January 28, 1945, Lupera, again armed, led a group of Japanese soldiers and Filipinos, all likewise armed, in the arrest of Juan Beltran, who likewise was never seen again after arrest. According to the prosecution, each of these overt acts described in counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 was testified to by at least two witnesses, all of whom had known Lupera since childhood and resided in the same barrio or town, with some witnesses themselves arrested by Lupera and his companions but spared the fate of the others.

For his part, Lupera interposed general denial and pleaded innocence on two grounds. He claimed and showed a lame left leg, ability to bend his right arm only to 25 degrees, and ability to raise his left arm only up to the level of his neck. To support alibi, Laureana Cabuan testified that after evacuating from Manila to Sukat, Muntinglupa in November 1944, she asked Lupera the next day to live in and occupy the house she had vacated on Pennsylvania Street in Manila, whereupon Lupera transferred to Manila and lived alone. Serapia Batac testified that Lupera was at her house in Paco on December 24 and 25, 1944 to do tailoring work, without disclosure of how she met Lupera, invited him, or discovered he was a tailor without previous acquaintance.

The People's Court credited the prosecution witnesses, finding no motive to perjure against Lupera's life and liberty, rejected infirmity and alibi as insufficient to immobilize him or overcome positive identification, found adherence fully shown by zealous leadership in arrests and investigations, and, with reluctance, gave weight to age over 70 years to avoid imposing the supreme penalty.

• Physical Infirmity and Age: Petitioner maintained that by reason of advanced age and physical defects — lame left leg, severely limited movement of both arms — he could hardly have engaged in the treasonous activities imputed to him.
• Alibi: Petitioner argued that he was residing alone in Manila and doing tailoring work in Paco on the material dates, relying on the testimonies of Laureana Cabuan and Serapia Batac to place him away from Sukat, Muntinglupa, Rizal.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 were proved beyond reasonable doubt by the required testimony on each overt act.
• Credibility and Defenses: Whether the positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevails over general denial, physical infirmity, and alibi.
• Adherence and Penalty: Whether adherence to the enemy was established and whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with mitigation for age over 70 years, was in accordance with law.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. Each overt act in counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 was satisfactorily proved beyond reasonable doubt, having been testified to by at least two witnesses for each and every overt act charged.
• Credibility and Defenses: Yes. The question was one of credibility, and the direct positive testimony of witnesses who knew the accused since childhood prevails over denial, non-immobilizing infirmities, and a strained, improbable alibi.
• Adherence and Penalty: Yes. Adherence was more than amply proved by the nature of the armed leadership, tying, and investigation, while age over 70 years was considered with reluctance to withhold the supreme penalty, leaving reclusion perpetua and P5,000 fine proper.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The record showed Lupera always armed and with Japanese soldiers, leading the December 25, 1944 early-morning arrests, pointing out a victim as guerrilla, aiding tying, participating in garrison investigation, and leading the January 28, 1945 arrest of Juan Beltran, with victims disappearing and two remains recovered December 27, 1944. Because at least two witnesses testified to each overt act, the two-witness requirement for treason was satisfied and guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility and Defenses: Prosecution witnesses knew Lupera since childhood, resided in the same locality, included persons themselves arrested but spared, and had absolutely no motive to perjure, which Lupera himself could not supply. Infirmity merely limited but did not immobilize movement, as shown by the claimed ability to live alone in Manila and move about for tailoring, and the alibi that an old infirm man would leave birthplace, relatives, and companions in November 1944 to live alone in a strange place to accommodate a slight acquaintance was found strange, strained, and beyond comprehension against positive identification.
• Adherence and Penalty: Adherence was inferred from the very nature of the acts — unusual vigor in leading arrests, tying those seized, and zeal in investigating guerrilla activities — showing complete transformation into an active follower of the enemy despite waning years and deformed limbs. Leniency for physical defect was held inapplicable given such fire, zeal, and vigor, but the mitigating circumstance of age, Lupera being over 70 years old, was applied with reluctance to avoid the supreme penalty.

• Treason by adherence and overt act — Treason requires both adherence to the enemy and commission of overt acts giving aid or comfort. Application here turned on armed companionship with Japanese soldiers combined with leading arrests, pointing out and tying victims, and investigating detainees for guerrilla activities, which together proved more than mere adherence.
• Two-witness rule for overt acts — Each and every overt act charged must be testified to by at least two witnesses. The conviction was sustained because counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 were each supported by at least two witnesses testifying to the same overt acts.
• Credibility deference and absence of ill motive — Factual findings on credibility are upheld where witnesses knew the accused well, gave direct positive identification, and had no motive to falsely testify against life and liberty. The People's Court's assessment was adopted for lack of any reason in the record to doubt sincerity and truthfulness.
• Positive identification over denial and alibi — General denial and alibi cannot prevail over direct positive testimony, especially where the alibi is improbable and the accused's own account shows continued freedom of movement. Lupera's Manila alibi and tailoring trips were rejected as too strained against eyewitness identification at the crime scenes.
• Age as mitigating circumstance in treason — Advanced age, here over 70 years, may be considered with reluctance to withhold the supreme penalty even where zeal and vigor negate leniency for physical infirmity. The penalty was thus kept at reclusion perpetua with P5,000 fine rather than death.

• "These overt acts imputed to the accused and described in counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the amended information were testified to by at least two witnesses foreach and every overt act charged." — States the evidentiary basis for affirmance, confirming compliance with the two-witness requirement for each overt act of treason.
• "There was absolutely no motive on the part of these witnesses to perjure against the life and liberty of the accused." — Explains the credibility finding favoring childhood neighbors and fellow arrestees whose positive identification was given full weight.
• "The adherence of the accused to the enemy is more than amply proven by the very nature of the overt acts themselves." — Articulates the ratio on adherence, deriving treasonous intent from armed leadership in arrests, tying, and guerrilla investigations.

Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concurred.