EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-2313
January
10, 1951
-versus-
JESUS
[ALIAS ERNESTO
QUILLOY],
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
JUGO,
J :
Jesus alias Ernesto
Quilloy was accused of treason before the Fourth Division of the
People's
Court on an information which contained four counts. He was found
guilty
on the second count, there being no findings in the decision appealed
from
as to the other counts. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay a fine of P10,000, and
the costs. He appealed.
From the evidence of
the prosecution we find the following facts established:
The appellant is a
Filipino citizen and a resident of Los Baños, Laguna. During the
Japanese occupation he joined the Japanese Imperial Army and served as
a guide of the Japanese in arresting guerrillas. He was often seen with
the members of the Makapili, an organization formed to help the
Japanese
in their campaign against the resistance movement and with the Japanese
soldiers and their informers. He carried arms, wore Japanese uniform,
and
was in charge of the Makapili garrison in Los Baños.
On February 4, 1945,
the appellant, with five other Filipinos and several Japanese soldiers,
all of them armed, surrounded the house of Isabelo Alviar in barrio San
Antonio, Los Baños, while the inmates of the house were taking
their
lunch. One of the Filipinos, a member of the patrol, ordered all the
inmates
to come down the house. They obeyed. The appellant spoke in the
Japanese
language to one of the Japanese members of the patrol, who forthwith
approached
Isabelo Alviar and pointed his bayonet at him saying: "You are a
guerrilla."
The appellant ordered Alviar to dress up because they were going to
take
him to the town for investigation. He did so and was taken to the town
of Los Baños.
Simplicia Barcalla,
wife of Alviar, followed her husband, guarded by the patrol, until they
reached a store at the corner of the provincial road and a street
leading
to the College of Agriculture. Her husband stopped at a side of the
road
with hands tied behind his back and guarded by a Makapili. She walked
toward
her husband, but the guard signaled her not to do so. At about five
o'clock
in the afternoon her husband was taken away by the patrol. Again she
followed
the group at a great distance, as she had been warned by one of the
Makapilis
not to follow closely. When the group arrived at the bridge leading to
the town of Los Baños, she heard several pistol shots. She was
scared
and ran to the municipal building, but not finding anybody there she
repaired
to the Makapili headquarters. She met one Pablo Villanueva at the
headquarters,
who told her that her husband was dead and his corpse could be found
near
the railroad track in barrio San Antonio. The next morning she went to
the place and found the dead body with two mortal bullet wounds.
The above facts were
testified to by Placido Angeles and Simplicia Barcalla, wife of Isabelo
Alviar.
On January 24, 1945,
the appellant with several Makapili and Japanese soldiers and
informers,
all armed, went to the house of Fernando Lawas in Los Baños.
They
arrested him and took him to the municipal jail where he was later
found
dead by his son-in-law Modesto Maligalig. After a parley with the
Japanese,
Modesto was allowed to recover the dead body. This was testified to by
Modesto Maligalig and Medim Lawas. However, this charge is not included
in the information and the evidence with regard to it may be considered
only as proof of adherence to the enemy.
The theory of the
defense
is that the appellant was himself a guerrilla, but in February, 1945,
he
was taken prisoner by the Japanese in Los Baños. When the
Fil-Americans
liberated Laguna, some guerrillas arrested the appellant and turned him
over to the CIC, Counter Intelligence Corps, which delivered him to the
chief of police of Los Baños for investigation. He was forced to
sign the affidavit, Exhibit A, which had not even been read to him.
The theory of the
defense
is untenable. If he was captured by the Japanese for being a guerrilla,
it is unbelievable that they came to have so much confidence in him as
to arm him and dress him in the Japanese uniform, entrusting him with
the
mission of helping them in the capture of other guerrillas, without any
fear that he might rejoin his guerrilla comrades, who had then become
very
strong on account of the direct help given them by the American troops
who had then landed in the Philippines.
The appellant claims
that he joined the Japanese forces on account of duress. Duress as a
valid
defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's
life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful, or
remote
fear. A person should not commit a very serious crime on account of a
flimsy
fear. Furthermore, the acts of the appellant were incompatible with
duress.
In the case of People vs. Bagalawis[*]
[44 Off. Gaz. 2655, 2667, No. 8], it was said:
"La defensa, pues,
de duress - miedo insuperable o fuerza irresistible - con que pretende
exculparse el acusado, obviamente no se puede sostener. El vago temor
que
alega no tiene fundamento en los hechos y circunstancias del caso, y no
es desde luego el temor eximente de que habla la ley. En la causa de
Republic
vs. McCarthy, supra, se ha declarado lo siguiente:
"He remained,
however,
with the British troops for ten or eleven months, during which he might
easily have accomplished his escape; and it must be remembered, that in
the eye of the law, nothing will excuse the act of joining an enemy,
but
the fear of immediate death; not the fear of any inferior personal
injury,
nor the apprehension of any outrage upon property. But had the
defendant
enlisted merely from the fear of famishing, and with a sincere
intention
to make his escape, the fear could not surely always continue, nor
could
his intention remain unexecuted for so long a period." [Republic vs.
McCarthy,
2 Dall., 36; 1 Law Ed., 300, 301]."
In view of the foregoing,
the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the
appellant.
It is so ordered.
Moran, C.J.,
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ.,
concur.
_______________________________
Endnotes:[*]
78 Phil. 174. |