GR L 399; (January, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-399; January 29, 1948
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO PRIETO (alias EDDIE VALENCIA), defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The appellant was charged with treason on seven counts before the People’s Court. He pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, and not guilty to counts 4, 5, and 6. The prosecution presented evidence only on count 4, abandoning counts 5 and 6 due to insufficient evidence. The trial court convicted him on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, sentencing him to death and a fine. The overt acts involved aiding Japanese forces by apprehending, torturing, and killing guerrilla suspects in Mandaue, Cebu, in 1944. On appeal, the defense argued that the trial court erred in not appointing a new counsel after the attorney de oficio expressed a desire to be relieved.
ISSUE
1. Whether the evidence on count 4 satisfied the two-witness rule required for treason.
2. Whether the murders and physical injuries alleged as overt acts of treason can be punished separately or used to complex the crime of treason.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not appointing a new counsel for the accused.
RULING
1. No, the evidence on count 4 did not satisfy the two-witness rule. The two witnesses gave contradictory and uncorroborated accounts of the overt act, failing to meet the constitutional requirement that each element of treason be proven by at least two witnesses. Thus, the appellant is acquitted of count 4.
2. No, the murders and physical injuries cannot be punished separately or used to complex the crime of treason. When killings or injuries are charged as overt acts of treason, they are inherent elements of the crime and cannot be punished independently or combined with treason under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the manner of execution (e.g., torture) may be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Article 14(21). Here, the aggravating circumstance is offset by the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty to the valid counts.
3. No, the trial court did not err. The presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings stands, and there was no showing that the appointed counsel failed to perform his duty. The counsel’s expressed reluctance did not translate to ineffective assistance, as he conducted the defense competently.
The Court modified the penalty. The appellant is guilty of treason under counts 1, 2, 3, and 7. With one aggravating circumstance offset by one mitigating circumstance, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The death sentence is set aside.
AI Generated by Armztrong.