People vs. Mangahas

A Filipino citizen who joins the Makapili organization and participates in overt acts of adherence to the enemy—such as raiding guerrilla supplies, arresting guerrilla members, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, and carrying firearms—may be convicted of treason where each overt act is established by the testimony of at least two witnesses.

Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas were Filipino citizens who, before the outbreak of the war, were members of the Ganap Party and, during the latter period of the Japanese occupation, joined the Makapili organization. They were charged with treason in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Cases Nos. 742 and 744) for acts committed in Norzagaray, Bulacan, in December 1944, including participation in armed raids on guerrilla positions, apprehension of guerrilla members, and commandeering of supplies intended for resistance forces.

Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas were Filipino citizens who, before the outbreak of the war, were members of the Ganap Party and, during the latter period of the Japanese occupation, became members of the Makapili organization. They were charged with treason in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan and, with their consent, tried jointly. The prosecution presented evidence of several overt acts committed in Norzagaray, Bulacan, during December 1944.

At about eleven o'clock in the morning of December 13, 1944, Jose Perez, a runner of the guerrillas operating around Victory Hill in Norzagaray, appeared at the house of Martin de la Merced, commanding officer of the guerrillas, and informed him that about thirty armed Makapilis had raided Lawang, a section of Norzagaray, and apprehended several guerrilla members. Martin de la Merced fled toward the bushes outside the town. His wife Enriqueta remained and received reports from two additional runners—Julian Payumo, who informed her that the house of Captain Basilio Leonardo had already been raided, and Lucio Ocampo, who told her the Makapilis were in front of the municipal building. Enriqueta left her house and positioned herself across the street. The Makapilis, among whom were Cayetano Mangahas, Mariano de los Santos Mangahas, and Francisco Castillo, arrived, surrounded the house, entered it, and took foodstuff intended for the guerrillas at Victory Hill, consisting of five sacks of rice, two cans of salted beef, a basketful of camote and another of tomatoes, a small bag of salt, and a half sack of sardines, salmon, and corned beef, which they brought to the Makapili garrison near the municipal building. Enriqueta B. de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz testified to these overt acts.

On December 30, 1944, five persons, among whom were the two defendants, came to the house of Moises Legaspi at Norzagaray, apprehended him, and brought him to the Makapili garrison. Three days later, on January 2, his wife Purita Ramos, together with her children—the eldest being Matias Legaspi, then eleven years old—went to the garrison and saw him, but he has not returned since and has not been seen. Purita Ramos and Matias Legaspi testified to these overt acts. Separately, on the morning of December 29, 1944, a group of armed Makapilis, among whom were the two defendants, took and carried away rice, shoes, a helmet, clothes, and anything they could get hold of from the house of Primo S. Cruz, apprehended him, and brought him together with other persons whose hands were tied to the San Jose garrison where Japanese soldiers were stationed; he has not been seen since. A similar fate befell Artemio Nicolas, who on December 30, 1944, was taken from his house by the defendants, tied up, brought to the poblacion and then to the San Jose garrison, and has not been seen since.

For their defense, Cayetano Mangahas testified that he and his brother Mariano were arrested by the Japanese on December 25, 1944, on suspicion of being guerrillas, and on that basis argued they could not have been among the group of thirty Makapilis that raided the house of Martin de la Merced on December 13. He also denied being among those who arrested Moises Legaspi. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Matias Legaspi, who was eleven years old at the time of the events and sixteen when he testified, being then a fifth grade student capable of perceiving and transmitting his perceptions. The trial court found both defendants guilty as charged.

• Two-Witness Rule: Appellants argued that the arrests of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas could not constitute treason because each was established only by the testimony of a single witness—the widow in each case—thus failing to satisfy the two-witness rule.
• Lack of Informer Evidence: Appellants argued that because there was no evidence showing the defendants acted as informers or were responsible for the arrest of Moises Legaspi, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for treason on those counts.
• No Proof of Adherence: Appellants claimed there was no proof of adherence to the enemy.
• Alibi: Cayetano Mangahas testified that he and his brother were arrested by the Japanese on December 25, 1944, on suspicion of being guerrillas, and argued that they could not have been among the group of thirty Makapilis that raided the house of Martin de la Merced on December 13, 1944.
• Lack of Instruction: Appellants raised lack of instruction as a circumstance that should mitigate the penalty for treason.

• Two-Witness Rule: Whether the overt acts of arresting Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas may constitute treason when each is established by the testimony of only one witness.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Arrest of Moises Legaspi: Whether the defendants' conviction for treason may stand on the count involving the arrest of Moises Legaspi even without evidence that they acted as informers.
• Adherence to the Enemy: Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish adherence to the enemy by the defendants.
• Alibi: Whether the defendants' uncorroborated testimony that they were arrested by the Japanese on December 25, 1944, precludes their participation in the raid of December 13, 1944.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Lack of Instruction: Whether lack of instruction should be taken into account to mitigate the penalty for treason.

• Two-Witness Rule: No, as to those specific counts. The arrests of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas cannot constitute treason for lack of two witnesses, each being established only by the testimony of a single widow; nevertheless, these acts serve as proof of adherence to the enemy.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Arrest of Moises Legaspi: Yes. The defendants were present when they arrested Moises Legaspi at his house on December 30, 1944, as established by the testimony of two witnesses—Purita Ramos and Matias Legaspi—whose identification of the appellants outweighs Cayetano Mangahas's mere denial.
• Adherence to the Enemy: Yes. The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around the town carrying firearms, and membership in the Ganap Party and the Makapili organization are more than sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy.
• Alibi: No. The uncorroborated testimony of Cayetano Mangahas cannot prevail over the testimony of Enriqueta B. de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz, who saw the defendants among the raiders on December 13, 1944.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Lack of Instruction: The minimum period of the penalty was not disturbed, because the evidence does not show that the appellants took part in the killing of the victims, consistent with the ruling in People vs. Cruz.

• Two-Witness Rule: The two-witness rule requires that each overt act of treason be established by the testimony of at least two witnesses. The arrest of Primo S. Cruz was proven only by the testimony of his widow Maria S. Cruz, and the arrest of Artemio Nicolas only by the testimony of his widow Virginia Boluran. Because each act rested on a single witness, these could not independently constitute treason. However, the Court held that these acts nonetheless constitute proof of adherence to the enemy, supporting the overall conviction even if they cannot serve as separate bases for the charge.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Arrest of Moises Legaspi: The defendants argued that there was no evidence they acted as informers or were responsible for the arrest of Moises Legaspi. The Court found no merit in this argument, noting that there was no doubt the two defendants were present when they arrested Moises Legaspi at his house on December 30, 1944. Purita Ramos and Matias Legaspi both pointed to the appellants as among the five Makapilis who apprehended him. The Court gave credence to Matias Legaspi, who was eleven years old at the time and sixteen when he testified, being a fifth grade student whose senses could perceive and transmit those perceptions to others. A mere denial by Cayetano Mangahas was insufficient to outweigh the testimony of two identifying witnesses.

• Adherence to the Enemy: The claim that there was no proof of adherence to the enemy was rejected. The Court enumerated the defendants' acts—arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around the town carrying firearms—and noted their membership in the Ganap Party before the war and in the Makapili organization during the latter period of the Japanese occupation. These acts, taken together, were deemed more than sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy.

• Alibi: Cayetano Mangahas testified that he and his brother were arrested by the Japanese on December 25, 1944, on suspicion of being guerrillas, and argued they could not have been among the raiders on December 13, 1944. The Court found this uncorroborated testimony insufficient to prevail over the testimony of Enriqueta B. de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz, who positively identified the defendants among the raiders on that date.

• Mitigating Circumstance of Lack of Instruction: Citing People vs. Predilla, the Court acknowledged that in some cases lack of instruction was taken into account to mitigate treason, while in others it was not. In People vs. Cruz, lack of instruction was not taken into consideration to mitigate treason, but because the defendants had not taken part in the killing of the victims, the minimum period of the penalty provided by law was not disturbed. Applying the same reasoning, the Court found that the evidence did not show the appellants took part in the killing of the victims, and accordingly the minimum penalty was not disturbed.

• Two-Witness Rule in Treason — Each overt act of treason must be established by the testimony of at least two witnesses. An act proven by the testimony of only one witness cannot independently constitute treason, though it may still serve as evidence of adherence to the enemy. In this case, the arrests of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas, each proven by only one witness, could not constitute treason as separate counts but were retained as proof of adherence.

• Adherence to the Enemy — Adherence to the enemy may be established by a combination of overt acts including arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, carrying firearms, and membership in organizations such as the Ganap Party and the Makapili. No single act need independently qualify as treason; the totality of the conduct suffices to demonstrate adherence.

• Lack of Instruction as Mitigating Circumstance in Treason — Lack of instruction has been treated inconsistently in treason cases: in some it was taken into account to mitigate, in others it was not. Where the evidence does not show the defendant participated in the killing of the victims, the minimum period of the penalty is not disturbed, even if lack of instruction is not formally considered as a mitigating circumstance.

• "The arrest of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas, who as alleged in the information was shot to death by the Japanese while attempting to escape at the time when the Americans began bombing, cannot be deemed sufficient to constitute treason for lack of two witnesses, because the arrest of Primo S. Cruz is established only by the testimony of his widow Maria S. Cruz and that of Artemio Nicolas only by the testimony of his widow Virginia Boluran. Nevertheless, it is a proof of adherence to the enemy." — This passage articulates the Court's application of the two-witness rule, distinguishing between acts that can independently constitute treason and those that may only serve as evidence of adherence.

• "The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around the town carrying firearms, and the fact that before the outbreak of the war they were members of the Ganap Party and in the latter period of the Japanese occupation of the Makapili organization, are more than sufficient proofs of adherence to the enemy." — This passage enumerates the categories of overt acts that, in combination, establish adherence to the enemy in treason prosecutions.

• "In some cases lack of instruction was taken into account to mitigate treason; in others it was not." — This passage, drawn from the Court's citation of People vs. Predilla, reflects the inconsistent treatment of lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance in treason cases and frames the Court's approach of preserving the minimum penalty where defendants did not participate in killings.

• People vs. Predilla, G.R. No. L-4407, March 25, 1952 — Cited for the proposition that lack of instruction has been treated inconsistently in treason cases: taken into account to mitigate in some cases, but not in others.
• People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-2236, May 16, 1951 — Cited for the rule that where lack of instruction was not considered to mitigate treason but the defendants did not take part in the killing of the victims, the minimum period of the penalty was not disturbed. Applied directly to the present case.
• People vs. Marasigan, 47 O.G. 3529 — Cited as an example of a case where lack of instruction was taken into account to mitigate treason.
• People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. L-2239, October 30, 1950 — Cited as an example of a case where lack of instruction was taken into account to mitigate treason.
• People vs. Lansanas, 46 O.G. 1531 — Cited as an example of a case where lack of instruction was not taken into account to mitigate treason.
• People vs. Menor, 47 O.G. 3532 — Cited as an example of a case where lack of instruction was not taken into account to mitigate treason.
• People vs. Magsino, G.R. No. L-3550, December 27, 1950 — Cited as an example of a case where lack of instruction was not taken into account to mitigate treason.
• People vs. Alba, G.R. No. L-2799, April 27, 1951 — Cited as an example of a case where lack of instruction was not taken into account to mitigate treason.

• Penalty for Treason — The defendants were sentenced to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, the accessories of the law, and each to pay a fine of P10,000 and the costs. The Court affirmed this penalty, noting that the minimum period was not disturbed because the evidence did not show the appellants participated in the killing of the victims.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concurred. Feria, J., took no part.