Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1565             January 9, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE DIMZON, defendant-appellant.
Mariano T. Regalado, Manuel O. Soriano, M. Villasis and Jose M. Manalo for
appellant.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon, Assistant Solicitor
General Manuel P. Barcelano and Acting Solicitor Honorio Romero for
appellee.
TUASON, J.:
The appellant was prosecuted for treason in the People's Court sitting in Iloilo
City and sentenced to 20 years and one day of reclusion temporal. Four
counts were laid in the information but evidence was introduced only on
counts two, three and four. This however does not entirely eliminate count
one since the predominant charge in this court — that the accused adhered to
the enemy, gave him aid and comfort, was his agent and informant, etc. — is
of general application and an essential element of the rest of the counts.
The state's evidence on counts two, three and four is of the tenor of the
information, and a recital of the prosecution witness' testimony thereon makes
unnecessary a restatement of the said counts in the words of the information.
Following is the gist of the evidence:
Count 2. Estrella de Tolentino testified that on April 27, 1943, at four a.m.,
Japanese troops surrounded her house in Dumaguete, Iloilo, where the family
had a fishpond, looking for her husband, a guerrilla lieutenant. She declared
that with the Japanese were Marcelo Buenaflor, defendant Jose Dimzon, and
Dito Perez; that the Japanese insisted, on being told that Lieutenant Tolentino
was in Manila, that he was with Colonel Peralta as a radio operator, a fact
which, she said in court, was true. The witness went on: The Japanese
carried guns fixed with bayonets and a machine gun. She and all her children,
all minors, were apprehended and taken to the municipal building in the
poblacion which was being used as Japanese headquarters. In that building
they were kept until about two o'clock the next morning, when they were
removed to the Japanese Garrison in the La Paz High School in Iloilo City.
She did not see Dimzon when she and her children arrived in La Paz. One
day, after her small child whispered to her that she had seen the accused, she
waited for him near the stairs, saw him walk by, and begged him to help her
and her children. Thereupon Dimzon took her to Matsusaki, Matsusaki told
her to "wait a little," and Dimzon seconded the advise, telling her to be patient
and assuring her that she and her children would be freed. Nevertheless they
were not released until two months later. She and her children were held in
the garrison for nine months in all. She said that she and the accused had
known each other intimately and he knew her place.
Mariano Tolentino, Mrs. Tolentino's oldest child, who was 18 years of age at
the time of the trial, testified that he was only 14 years when he, his mother,
brothers and sisters were apprehended. He said that Dimzon was one of the
Filipinos who went up their house; that he did not then know Dimzon by name
but could identify and remember his face.
Count 3. Tomas Docdocil, 65 years of age, testified that on April 27, 1943,
about four o'clock in the morning, he was aroused from sleep by the sound of
the breaking of his fence and so went down the house. In the yard, he said,
he saw Jose Dimzon and three Japanese. Dimzon, on seeing him, told the
Japanese to bind and beat him and he was bound and beaten twice on the
legs and once on the waist. He said he asked Dimzon what fault he had
committed and was told that he was feeding the soldiers of the Philippine
Army (guerrillas.) He added that, as a matter of fact, he was helping Filipino
soldiers but denied to the Japanese doing so. Docdocil said the accused told
him to remember that the Allies could not come back in twenty years, and
after saying this went into the house with three Filipinos and Japanese. When
they came down they were carrying two sackfuls of clothing and he was taken
to town. He declared there were about 25 Japanese and four Filipinos in the
raiding party, the former being armed with guns fixed with bayonets and the
accused with a pistol and a bolo.
On the same accasion, according to Docdocil, Melquiades Manajero was also
arrested and with him was taken to the poblacion whence both of them were
carried in a truck, with their hands tied, to the high school building in La Paz.
The accused did not, however, ride in that truck, he said. The next day, at
noon, he and Manajero were released, and when he got home P200 in
genuine bills and P200 in emergency notes were missing.
Docdocil also testified that Dimzon was the first to enter his house, some
Japanese following him while others remained outside. He declared that
Dimzon is the son of his (Docdocil's) wife's cousin; that when Dimzon was a
student the latter stayed in his house; that he regarded Dimzon as his own
son and nursed that young man when he was ill and helped him in his
industrial work in school.
Segundo Dolar declared that on April 27, 1943, about four a.m., there were
alarms and he heard people yelling that there were Japanese in Pagdugui,
whereupon he hid his children and wife; that at dawn a group of Japanese
passed by his house and he saw Tomas Docdocil and Melquiades Manajero
in the middle of the group with their hands bound; that Dimzon and two other
Filipinos whom he did not know were mingled with the Japanese; that he did
not notice whether the accused was armed because Dimzon "was a little bit
far."
The evidence on count 4, consisting of the testimony of Gregorio and
Teodorico Deza, brothers, is summed up in the findings of the trial court which
are here abridged:
Since August, 1942, Gregorio, Teodorico, Alejandrita, Coronacion and Loreto
Deza and the latter's husband, Tito Famorcan, a priest of the Philippine
Independent Church, had evacuated to barrio Agpangan, municipality of Ajuy,
Province of Iloilo. On September 19, 1943, the lieutenant of that barrio notified
all its residents that by order of the Japanese Army they were to go to barrio
Gaong of the same municipality and surrender, with a warning that if they did
not do so the Japanese would launch an extermination campaign. Heeding
the order, the Deza brothers and sisters, Padre Famorcan and other
inhabitants of the barrio set out for Gaong. There they found Japanese troops
and Filipino civilians numbering about 1,000, some of whom were tied up and
separated from the rest. The civilians were ordered to line up by the
Japanese. Padre Famorcan, his wife, his small child and his sisters-in-law
Alejandrita and Coronacion, kept together a little far from their brothers
Gregorio and Teodorico. The Japanese and their Filipino agents paraded
along the lines as if looking for some ones and when the accused spotted
Padre Famorcan and the three sisters, he pointed them to the Japanese.
Coronacion, Alejandrita and Father Famorcan's wife were the sisters of Rizal
Deza who had killed two Japanese fliers that were forced to land in
Dumangas the previous year. The said three sisters and the priest were taken
out of the line, bound up and questioned about the whereabouts of their
brother Rizal. During the investigation, Padre Famorcan was made to sit and
his lap was weighed down with a heavy log. Then Gregorio and Teodorico
Deza slipped away and escaped. The next day they received the news that
their sisters and brother-in-law had been taken in a launch to Sara where they
were decapitated.
The defendant admitted his presence with Japanese when Mrs. Mariano
Tolentino, her children, Tomas Docdocil and Melquiades Manajero were
arrested, but he explained that he himself was a prisoner or had been drafted
as cargador. He also admitted being with Japanese troops on the occasion of
the concentration of Filipino civilians at Ajuy, but he said he was on the other
side of the creek with another group of Japanese troops when members of the
Deza family were picked out at the concentration, and he denied that he had
anything to do with the arrests, tortures and killing of those unfortunates.
Appellant's counsel de oficio questions the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution. In a praiseworthy brief he has made a thorough analysis of the
evidence which challenges our attention. Yet, read in its entirety, the record
leaves no room for doubt that the accused perpetrated the charges preferred
in the last three counts.
There are admitted, undeniable, or clearly established acts of the defendant's
which make treason, unless they were committed, as claimed, in furtherance
of underground resistance. Among other things, it is admitted that the
accused accompanied the Japanese troops who seized Lt. Tolentino's wife
and children, Tomas Docdocil and Melquiades Manajero. And it has been
shown beyond any doubt that Dimzon was one of five men, Japanese and
Filipinos, who entered the Tolentino home, and was also with another group
which entered Docdocil's dwelling.
There is no sufficient reason for doubting the veracity of Mrs. Tolentino and
her son. Mariano Tolentino's testimony does not diverge from that of his
mother's, nor was it unreliable or uncertain. Already 14 years old when the
raid was made and 18 when he was called to the witness stand, the boy had
enough intelligence to get a clear mental picture of and remember the
defendant's face though he did not know Dimzon by name when their place
was raided and had not laid eyes on him before. It should be noted that this
boy was detained nine months and must have seen the defendant in the
Japanese garrison in the course of his detention as did his mother and one of
his brothers.
Docdocil was the only eye-witness to his arrest in his home, and no one
testified as to where and how Manajero was seized. It may be granted that
this phase of the third count as an overt act of treason was not substantiated
under the two-witness rule. But Segundo Dolar said he saw both Docdocil and
Manajero tied and under the custody of the Japanese with whom, he also
declared, Dimzon mingled. As far therefore as Docdocil's and Manajeros
capture is concerned, the statutory requisite corroboration is present.
Regarding defendant's part in Docdocil's maltreatment, only this complainant,
as has been seen, testified. Nevertheless the court is not precluded from
taking Docdocil's testimony about the defendant's role in his punishment as
evidence of adherence and as refutation of the defense that the accused was
a prisoner or cargador.
Docdocil's statement that he was tied and beaten by the Japanese upon
Dimzon's order is scoffed away on the theory that the accused was nobody to
give such orders. But it would not have been unusual for a comrade, specially
one who was leading the raiding party, to make suggestions to enlisted men,
and it would not have been unusual for these to please him. Viewed in this
light, Docdocil's testimony is credible and was properly given credence by the
trial court.
Taken singly, Docdocil's testimony about the accused's attitude toward the
witness might appear unbelievable in the face of the close relationship
between the two and of the many favors Docdocil had done this defendant
before the war, taking and feeding him in his (witness') home, caring for him in
his sickness, helping him in his school work, etc. But the defendant himself
has stated the probable motive which the old man was unable to give for his
nephew's behavior. Designed to show that Docdocil bore grudges against him
and so was a hostile witness, the defendant's testimony actually showed the
other way around. Dimzon told in detail about ill-feelings and "exchange of
words" between him and Docdocil arising from what he called "our
inheritance." He also spoke of Docdocil having been a supporter of
defendant's "arch-enemy in politics." The tone and temper of his testimony
seemed to ring with a bitterness that must have rankled in his breast.
The testimony of the Deza brothers, Gregorio and Teodorico, on Court 4 is
attacked on two grounds which seem to be quite inconsistent with each other.
On the one hand, it is said that their statements are "strikingly very similar in
pattern, a glaring characteristic of fabricated testimony." On the other hand, it
is said that "where corroboration was essential, their statements seriously
contradict each other, which can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that
either they were not present in the scene of the incident or they have offered
perjured testimony."
The discrepancies and similarities between the two witnesses' descriptions of
what they saw are precisely what we think give their stories the seal of
authenticity. The discrepancies were natural and to be expected from the two
witnesses recounting what they had noticed and what they had not in an
event long past and full of confusion, excitement, horror and fears. The
occasion, it should be recalled, was the concentration of one thousand people
and the processing of wanted men and women with its accompanying tortures
and brutalities. At any rate, neither witness could have been wrong in
asserting that the accused was with the Japanese and had an active part in
the procedure. If Dimzon had done nothing else than that he still he would be
guilty of treason, unless he acted against his will or with ulterior worthy
motive.
The defendant's assertions that he had been forced by the Japanese to come
along to Ajuy and that he remained on the other side of the stream with
another contingent of Japanese troops were properly given scant attention by
the People's Court in the light of his other performances and long connection
with the enemy.
The defendant's plea that he himself was a prisoner of the Japanese who
arrested the Tolentino children and their mother, Docdocil and Manajero, was
a clumsy effort to extricate himself out of his difficulties and is belied by his
actions and his own witnesses. His actions showed anything but that of a
captured guerilla. He was carrying a pistol, entered the Tolentino and the
Docdocil houses with a selected few, and was otherwise moving about freely,
even with an air of authority. Afterwards he was made mayor and was seen
frequently in the Japanese headquarters in Iloilo City. At the trial he
unwittingly boasted of having been instrumental in Mrs. Tolentino's and their
children's discharge from prison as well as in the release of some of his
witnesses and several others. By this evidence, which came from his own lips,
the defendant made it clear that he wielded great influence with, and enjoyed
the confidence of, the masters. The implications of such influence and
privileges are too obvious to call elaboration.
As to his position with the Japanese in Dumangas, there is, besides
circumstantial evidence, direct proof contradicting the defendant's testimony
that he was taken along by the Japanese as a prisoner or cargador, and this
direct proof was supplied by his own witnesses. Two of his witnesses testified
that they, too, were used as carries by the Japanese on that occasion and
that they were set free as a result of defendant's intercession in their behalf,
after they had requested Dimzon to talk for them with their captors.
The main theme of the defense is that the accused was a guerilla and that his
collaboration was a front designed to mask his underground affinity and to
facilitate his work of espionage on the Japanese. As stated, he summoned
several witnesses to corroborate him along this line.
The witnesses testimony is for the most part vague and rambling, possibly
reflecting parallel uncertainty and equivocation in defendant's attitude and
relation with the guerrillas. If these witnesses are to be believed, what the
defendant accomplished or was supposed to do was, at the most, get office
supplies, the life histories of local Japanese commanders, and other
information of little or no value to the resistance.
If deeds then speak louder than words, there is good ground to believe that
the accused was a collaborator first and foremost and a guerilla last. Whereas
his alleged contribution to the guerilla cause was practically nil, his aid to the
enemy was long-continued, effective, valuable and actually harmful to his
people. With this contrast in mind, the People's Court was not far wrong, if it
was not wholly right, in finding that the accused merely followed the familiar
pattern of collaborators' stratagem of burning candles for both sides; and such
scheme was perhaps deemed all the more alluring at the time the defendant
made the motions of catering to the good will of some guerillas, because then
the American forces were winging their way back to the Philippines and the
approach of the day of reckoning was not hard to visualize.
The judgment appealed from will be affirmed except that the principal penalty
shall be 20 years of reclusion temporal instead of 20 years and one day, the
last being one day too much under the classification and graduation of
penalties in the Revised Penal Code; with costs.
Moran, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,
Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.