GR L 2959; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2959; May 28, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Marcelo Almazora, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Marcelo Almazora, a Filipino citizen, was convicted of treason by the Court of First Instance of Laguna and sentenced to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, a fine of P5,000, and costs. The case originated from the abolished People’s Court and was tried in a mass trial with other treason defendants, including his brother Alejandro Almazora. Marcelo was charged under six counts but found guilty under counts 1, 3, and 4. Under count 1, evidence showed he joined and served in the Makapili organization in Calauan, Laguna, in December 1944, accompanying Japanese soldiers on raids, arresting guerrilla suspects, and turning them over to the Japanese. Under count 3, witnesses Matias Mendoza and Norberto Ongkiatco testified that on December 23, 1944, they were arrested by a group of armed Makapilis, including Marcelo, taken to Makalauang Spring, investigated, and tortured. Under count 4, witnesses Aurora Azucena and Crispin Aniceta testified that on January 15, 1945, a group of Makapilis, including Marcelo, arrested Andres Ramos and others in San Isidro, Calauan; Ramos was taken away and never seen again. The appellant denied the charges and presented an alibi, claiming he was elsewhere during the incidents, which the trial court rejected.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of Marcelo Almazora for the crime of treason under counts 1, 3, and 4 has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no reversible error. The Court held that the evidence sufficiently established Marcelo Almazora’s guilt for treason. Regarding count 1, his membership in the Makapili could be inferred from his acts, such as frequenting its headquarters, associating with known members, joining raids with Japanese soldiers, and being armed. For counts 3 and 4, the testimonies of witnesses were credible and established his participation in the arrests and raids. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for lacking positive and convincing proof. The penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed.