People vs. Capistrano

A minor between nine and fifteen years of age who commits treason is not exempt from criminal liability when the trial court finds that he acted with discernment, but his minority operates as a special mitigating circumstance that lowers the prescribed penalty by two degrees.

During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, Filipino citizens who rendered military or auxiliary service to the Japanese armed forces — known as "Yoin" or "Makapili" — could be prosecuted for treason after liberation. The accused, Bienvenido Capistrano, admitted being a Filipino citizen. He was charged before the Court of First Instance of Quezon with treason on four counts arising from his service as a Yoin and his participation in armed raids against civilians in Lopez, Tayabas (now Quezon), in early 1945.

Bienvenido Capistrano, a Filipino citizen, was charged before the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province with the crime of treason on four counts. The evidence established that he served as a so-called "Yoin" — an armed soldier of the Japanese — wearing a Japanese military uniform, carrying a gun, and rendering services as a guard of a Japanese garrison. Witnesses Alejo Enriquez Wong, Carmen Verdera, and Placer Canada testified to this effect. Although no written formal appointment as Yoin or Makapili was introduced, it was clear from the evidence that he was engaged in guarding the Japanese garrison while armed and in uniform and took part in Japanese military drills.

At about three o'clock in the morning of January 8, 1945, Capistrano, together with other Filipino Yoin members and several Japanese soldiers — all armed — arrived near the house of Carmen Verdera in Barrio Malay, Municipality of Lopez, Province of Tayabas (now Quezon), and ordered the inmates to open the door. The raiding party entered the house, raised the mosquito nets, and ordered the inmates to rise. Capistrano and his companions then tied Graciano Fortuna, Carmen Verdera, Alejo Enriquez Wong, Rufino Rivera, Maria Canada, Brisilio Canada, Remedios Anastacio, Dolores Enriquez, Teodora Zamora, Presentacion Anastacio, and Placer Canada using a rope that had served as a clothesline. The intruders searched the premises and seized from Alejo Enriquez Wong $1,000 in U.S. currency and ₱4,000 in Philippine currency. The inmates were taken to the Japanese garrison at Lopez and then to the Yoin garrison in the same town. The motive for the raid was that Pedro Canada, brother of Placer, was a guerrilla lieutenant in Lopez, and Salvador Fortuna, son of Graciano, was a soldier in the guerrilla organization.

During the detention of Placer and her companions at the Yoin garrison, Capistrano one night attempted to sexually abuse Placer and her companions, but when the women cried and the Japanese came, he escaped. Placer and her companions were released after one month upon payment of ₱2,500 in Japanese war notes to the chief of the Yoin and to Capistrano. The charge was corroborated by several victims.

Capistrano was more than nine but less than fifteen years of age at the time he committed the crime. The trial court, having had the opportunity to see and hear the accused, found that he acted with discernment. Notably, he appeared as the leader or commander of the raiding party. The attorney de oficio appointed for the appellant filed a petition stating that after reading and studying the evidence, he found no substantial error committed by the trial court and prayed for affirmance of the judgment.

• No Formal Appointment as Yoin: The defendant argued at the trial court that there was no evidence showing that he had been appointed a Yoin or that he was a Makapili.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Treason: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for treason despite the absence of a written formal appointment as Yoin or Makapili.
• Effect of Minority on Criminal Liability: Whether the accused's minority (between nine and fifteen years of age) exempts him from criminal liability or operates as a mitigating circumstance.
• Applicability of Article 80, Revised Penal Code: Whether Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, providing for suspension of sentence for youthful offenders, may be applied to the accused.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Treason: Yes. The absence of a written formal appointment did not preclude conviction, the evidence clearly showing that the accused was engaged in guarding the Japanese garrison while armed, in uniform, and participating in Japanese military drills.
• Effect of Minority on Criminal Liability: Minority does not exempt the accused from criminal responsibility because the trial court found he acted with discernment; however, it constitutes a special mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty by two degrees.
• Applicability of Article 80, Revised Penal Code: No. Article 80 cannot be applied because the accused was over eighteen years old at the time of trial.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Treason: Although no written formal appointment as Yoin or Makapili was introduced in evidence, the Court found it clear that the accused was engaged in the work of guarding the Japanese garrison, armed with a gun, wearing a Japanese uniform, and taking part in the military drills of the Japanese army. These overt acts, corroborated by multiple witnesses — Alejo Enriquez Wong, Carmen Verdera, and Placer Canada — sufficiently established adherence to the enemy and the rendering of aid and comfort. The raid on the civilian home, the binding of inmates, the seizure of money, the detention at the garrison, the attempted sexual abuse, and the extortion of ransom further demonstrated the accused's active participation in hostile acts against his fellow Filipinos in service of the Japanese occupation forces.

• Effect of Minority on Criminal Liability: The accused was more than nine but less than fifteen years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. Under the Revised Penal Code, a minor in this age bracket is not exempt from criminal liability if found to have acted with discernment. The trial court, having had the opportunity to observe the accused, found that he acted with discernment — a finding reinforced by his apparent role as leader or commander of the raiding party. While minority therefore did not exempt him, it served as a special mitigating circumstance warranting a reduction of the penalty by two degrees, from life imprisonment to four years of prision correccional.

• Applicability of Article 80, Revised Penal Code: Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for the suspension of sentence for youthful offenders, could not be applied because the accused was over eighteen years of age at the time of trial. The Court relied on People vs. Estefa (47 Off. Gaz. No. 11, 5652; 86 Phil. 104) in support of this ruling.

• Discernment as condition for criminal liability of minors aged nine to fifteen — A minor over nine but under fifteen years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless found to have acted with discernment. Where the trial court, having observed the accused, determines that discernment was present — as where the minor acted as leader of a raiding party — criminal responsibility attaches, but minority operates as a special mitigating circumstance reducing the penalty by two degrees.

• Inapplicability of Article 80, Revised Penal Code to offenders over eighteen at time of trial — The suspension of sentence under Article 80 for youthful offenders cannot be invoked where the accused has exceeded eighteen years of age by the time of trial, regardless of his age at the time the offense was committed. This rule was affirmed by reference to People vs. Estefa.

• "Although his minority does not exempt him from criminal responsibility for the reason that he acted with discernment, yet it may be considered as a special mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty by two (2) degrees." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the effect of minority where discernment is found, establishing the two-degree reduction rule for minors between nine and fifteen convicted of treason.

• "Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied to the accused because he was over eighteen (18) years old at the time of the trial." — This defines the temporal threshold for Article 80's applicability, tying eligibility to the accused's age at trial rather than at the time of the offense.

• "While no written formal appointment was introduced in evidence, yet it is clear that he was engaged in the work of guarding the Japanese garrison, armed with a gun and wearing a Japanese uniform and taking part in the military drills of the Japanese army." — This establishes that overt acts of adherence to the enemy, rather than formal documentation of appointment, suffice to prove the elements of treason.

• People vs. Estefa, 47 Off. Gaz. No. 11, 5652; 86 Phil. 104 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied to an accused who is over eighteen years of age at the time of trial, regardless of his minority at the time of the offense.

• Article 80, Revised Penal Code — Provides for the suspension of sentence for youthful offenders. The Court held it inapplicable because the accused was over eighteen years old at the time of trial, citing People vs. Estefa.
• Revised Penal Code provisions on minority as a mitigating circumstance — The Court applied the rule that a minor over nine but under fifteen who acts with discernment is criminally liable, but his minority constitutes a special mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty by two degrees.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concurred.