Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-1489 March 17, 1949
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado,
vs.
RUFINO LUPERA, acusado-apelante.
D. Ulpiano C. Dumaual en representacion del aplante.
El Procurado General Auxiliar Sr. Manuel P. Barcelonay el Procurador Sr. Honorio Romero en representacion del Gobierno.
BRIONES, J.:
Tratase de la apelacion interpuesta por el acusado, Rufino Lupera contra la sentencia unanime del que fue Tribunal del Pueblo en que por el delito de traicion se le condena a sufrir la pena de reclusion perpetua y a pagar una multa de P5,000 mas las costas del juicio. La querellacontenia siete cargos pero la prosecution articulo pruebas sobre los cargos 4,5,6, y 7 solomente y de ellos se le hallo y declaro al acusado culpable.
Despues de revisar las pruebads hemos llegado a la conlusion de que los mencionados cargos han quedado sa tisfactoriamente probados fuera de toda duda razonable conforme lo pronuncia la sentencia cuidadosamente redactada por el Juez Asociado Hon, Pompeyo Diaz con la concurrencia de sus asociados Hon. Leopoldo Rovira y Angel S. Gamboa.
La parte pertinente de la sentencia a la crual damos nuestro asentimiento es como sigue:
The evidence for the prosecution consisting of the testimonies of witnesses who had known the accused since their childhood and who hailed from and resided in the same barrio or town as the accused show: that during the Japanese occupation the herein accused Rufino Lupera alias "Pinong Pilay", was always seen armed and in the company of Japanese soldiers: that during the fateful hour between 4:00 and 6:00 in the early morning of December 25, 1944, the accused who was then armed accompanied by Japanese soldier and Filipinos all likewise armed actively led the said group and participated in the arrest and apprehension of Eligio Salvador, Cirilo Lopena, Filomeno Landrito and many others; that the said accused pointed out Cirilo Lopera to his Japanese companions as guerrilla and that he even aided the Japanese in tying up Cirilo Lupera and Eligio Salvador at the time of their arrest; that the said accused actively participated in the investigation of Cirilo Lopera and Eligio Salvador for their guerrilla activities while these two were confined in the Japanese garrison at the Sukat Barrio School at Sukat Muntinglupa Rizal that in the arrest of the above-named person it was the accused who called them by their names on arriving at their respective homes and it was he who went up their houses first s followed immediately by his Japanese and Filipino companion; and that these people arrestedby the accused were never seen or heard of again from the time of their arrest Eligio Salvador and Cirilo Lopena whose remains were found buried in a shallow pit at the back of the school yard at Sukat Muntinglupa Rizal on December 27, 1944. The evidence also show that on January 28, 1945 at around 11:00 p.m. said accused armed led a group of Japanese soldier and Filipinos all likewise armed in the arrest of Juan Beltran who was never seen alike again after arrest.
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.
On the other hand, the evidence for the defense consisted of a general denial by the accused of the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial and a plea of innocence predicated on two grounds, namely, the physical infirmity of the accused and the defense of alibi. The accused claimed and showed that his left leg is lame that he can bend his right arm to theextent of only 25 degrees and he can raise his left arm only up to the level of his neck. To bolster the defense of alibi the defense introduced two witnesses Laureana Cabuan and Serapia Batac. The former testified that when she evacuated to Sukat Muntinglupa on November 1944 from Manila she asked the accused on the next day of her arrival to go to the city to lived in and occupy the house she vacated at Pennsylvania street in Manila and forthwith the accused transferred to Manila and lived alone in the said house. Serapia Batac on the other hand testified that the accused was at her house in Paco on December 24, and 25, 1944, to do some tailoring work How this witness ever happened to meet the accused and to invite him to her house to saw and how did she ever discover that the accused was a tailor without having had the benefit of a previous acquaintance with him the evidence does not disclose.
Obviously the question resolved itself into one of credibility. All the witnesses for the prosecution know the accused very well and almost all of them have known the accused since their childhood, and like the accused have resided in the same barrio or town during the Japanese occupation. Some of the witnesses were themselves arrested by accused and his companion but were fortunate enough to be spared the tragic fate that befell Cirilo Lopera Eligio Salvador Filomeno Landrito Juan Beltran and the other who have not come back. There was absolutely no motive on the part of these witnesses to perjure against the life and liberty of the accused. Indeed the accused himself could not think of any much as he wanted to.
The old age and physical infirmities of the accused while they might have ordinarily limited his sphere of action certainly did not immobilize him and not prevent him from going wherever he pleased and if we are to believehis claim he was even able to come and live alone in Manila Frequenting his claim he parts of the city in the pursuit of his tailoring work. This only shows that his physical infirmities did not restrict hiss freedom of movement. But was the accused really in Manila and not in Sukat Muntinglupa Rizal in the closing month of 1944 and the first months of the year 1945?
We find it strange and beyond comprehension that the accused an old man well advanced in year infirm of limbs and body a native of the residing at barrio Sukat Muntinglupa, Rizal, should transfer hiss residence to Manila and live here alone without any companion request of a woman a Manila resident who had evacuated to Sukat Muntinglupa who knew him slightly let alone the condition of the times. We see here therefore an old and infirm man at the sunset of his leaving his place of birth and his familiar haunts and companions relative and friend to transfer to a place unknown and strange to him and to live there alone with life and livelihood uncertain because of the condition of the times (November, 1944), and all these to accommodatea woman from whom he owned no special favor and with whom he was not bound by any impelling bonds of relationship. The logic of the situationhere and its probability are indeed too strained.
These pretension of the accused can not prevail over the direct and positive testimony of witnesses who actually saw recognized and identified the accused in the commission of the overt acts imputed to him proven during trial witnesses whose sincerity and truthfulness the court has no reason the doubt.
The adherence of the accused to the enemy is more than amply proven by the very nature of the overt acts themselves. Seen always armed and always in the company of Japanese soldier displaying unusual vigor in leading the arrest and the tying of the people arrested and zeal in the investigation of those arrested for their guerrilla activities all these show not only mere adherence but the complete and full transformation of the accused into a loyal and active disciple of Nippon especially if we take into consideration his waning years and the great physical handicaps and infirmities of his waning year and the great physical handicaps and infirmities of his deformed and wasted limbs. Indeed he had gone a long way in ingratiating himself with the cruel enemy and his path had been strewn with the anguish and suffering of these of those whom he had chosen to betray.
The leniency which the law at times feel towards offenders who are physical defective who are infirm of body and wasted of limbs can find no application in this present case where the herein accused has shown such fire of purpose and zeal and vigor in the execution of his treasonous activities. We are zeal and unaware of the mitigating circumstance of age the accused being over 70 year old and consideration it with reluctance in the accused favor we do not imposed upon him the supreme penalty.
Se dice con razon en la sentencia que toda la cuestion en esta causa se areducee a la credibilidad de los testigos. No hemos hallado nada en autos que justifique el que no demos plena validez a las apreciacines de hecho establecidas por el Tribunal del Pueblo al declarar culpable al acusado con relacion a los cargos de que se ha hecho merito.
Se hace hincapie en que el acusado por su edad algun tanto avanzada y por cierto defecto fisico mal podia dedicarse a las actividades de traicion deque se le acusa, Sin embargo se declara en la sentencia apelada — y estimamos que atinadamente — que in una ni otra cosa tuvieron el efecto de inmovilizar al acisado para dejar su provincia y venir a vivir en Manila y ya en esta ciudad ir de un sitio a otro prosiguiendo su oficio de sastre.
En meritos de lo expuesto y estando ajustada a derecho la sentencia la misma se confirma con las costs a cargo del apelante. Asi se ordena.
Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon ,Tuason y Montemayor, MM., estan conformes.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
