10/28/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 084

[No. L-1553. October 25, 1949]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and

appellee, vs. FRANCISCO CONCEPCION, defendant and
appellant.

1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; TRIAL; REOPENING A

CASE FOR RECEPTION OP EVIDENGE,
DisCRETiONARY.—The matter of reopening a case for
the reception of further evidence after either the
prosecution or the defense has rested is within the
discretion of the trial court.

2. ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; TWO-WITNESS RULE.—Although

there may not be corroboration between the two
prosecution witnesses on the points they testified, yet
when the witnesses are uniform in their testimony on the
overt act of treason charged, the two-witness rule is
complied with.

3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULES OF; NEW TRIAL ON

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE; RETRACTION OP
TESTIMONY.—Retraction of witnesses as ground for new
trial are not entitled to credit, since their affidavits to that
effect are obviously the result of an afterthought, and if
they could have lied during their testimony

788

788 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Concepcion

in court for some consideration or motive, they can now by

the same token commit another falsity.

APPEAL from a judgment of the People's Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Manuel A. Concordia for appellant.
Assi&tant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr., and
Antonio A. Torres, for appellee.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756df217182aac1742003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
10/28/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 084

PARAS, J.:

This is an appeal frorn a judgment of the People's Court

finding the appellant, Francisco Concepcion, guilty of
treason and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P10,000 and the costs.
The appellant was found guilty of treason on three
counts, namely: The apprehension on December 7, 1944, in
Cebu City, by the appellant (accompanied by Japanese) of
Basilio Severino. (Count 3.) The apprehension on De~
cember 3,1944, in Cebu City, by the appellant
(accompanied by Japanese and Pablo Labra and Maximo
Bate) of Clemente Chica. (Count 5.) The apprehension on
January 9, 1944, in Cebu City, by appellant (accompanied
by Manuel Cocon and a Japanese) of Gavino Moras. The
evidence for the prosecution shows that the three
individuals were apprehended by the appellant or at his
instigation, due to their guerrilla connections.
The first error assigned by counsel for the appellant as
having been committed by the lower court has reference to
its action in allowing the prosecution to present evidence of
appellant's Filipino citizenship after the prosecution had
rested its case and the defense had moved for dismissal.
This assignment is untenable, as the matter of reopening a
case for the reception of further evidence after either the
prosecution or the defense has rested is within the
discretion of the trial court (23 C. J. S., par. 1056, pp. 464
465, 467).
Under the second, third and fourth assignments of error,
counsel for the appellant argues that the charges of which

789

VOL. 84, OCTOBER 25, 1949 789

People vs. Concepcion

the appellant was convicted have not been proven in

accordance with the two-witness rule. Specifically it is
contended that while proseeution witness Agapito Severino
testified that the appellant, with a Japanese interpreter,
arrived at their house and inquired if his brother Basilio
Severino was at home, and said that the latter was wanted
at the military police headquarters for questioning, the
other prosecution witness Edgardo Severino did not
corroborate witness Agapito in this respect. Neither did the
latter corroborate Edgardo as regards the fact that Basilio
Severino was taking a bath and as regards Basilio's
statement that the appellant and his companions should
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756df217182aac1742003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/4
10/28/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 084

wait. There may not be corroboration between the two

prosecution witnesses on the points mentioned, but said
witnesses are uniform in their testimony that Basilio
Severino was arrested on December 7, 1944. The latter
important detail constitutes the overt act of treason
charged in eount 3.
The same consideration may be said regarding the
criticism of appellant's counsel that there is lack of
corroboration on some details between prosecution
witnesses Melchor Ugayong and Victoriano Cagitla, who,
however, testified in unison on the overt act charged in
count 5, namely, the apprehension by appellant of
Clemente Chica.
As to count 6, it is contended by counsel for the defense
that the testimony of the principal witnesses for the
prosecution ia merely to the effect that the appellant was
waiting below the house of Gavino Moras (who was
arrested), and that it was appellant's Japanese companions
who came down from the house with said Gavino Moras.
This argument is also without merit, it having been
established by at least two witnesses that the appellant
and his companions arrived at the house of Gavino at the
same time, from which the conclusion is inescapable that
he actually in a way aided in the apprehension of Gavino
Moras.
It is lastly pretended by counsel for appellant that the
latter was an ex-USAFFE officer and joined the Japanese

790

790 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Concepcion

under duress. There is nothing in the record which tends to

indicate that the appellant apprehended or aided in the
arrest of his victims under actual and imminent threats of
death or bodily harm in case he should do otherwise. Upon
the other hand, the evidence shows that he willingly
perpetrated the acts of treason of which he was convicted
by the lower court.
Counsel for the appellant has filed a motion for new trial
based on newly-discovered evidence tending to show that
the appellant was merely a liaison officer between the
Provincial Government of Cebu and the Japanese Military
Police; that three of the prosecution witnesses are
retracting, and that the appellant had saved some Filipinos
arrested by the Japanese. The first point is sought to be
established by affidavits of two Japanese war prisoners.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756df217182aac1742003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/4
10/28/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 084

These are not entitled to credit, as their affidavits were

executed after the defeat of Japan in the last war, of which
fact the Japanese affiants may be assumed to be aware.
Besides, the alleged civilian position of the appellant did
not prevent him from becoming a traitor to his country.
Neither are the three retracting witnesses entitled to
credit, since their affidavits are obviously the result of an
afterthought, and if they could have lied during their
testimony in court for some consideration or motive, they
can now by the same token commit another falsity. The
alleged cireumstance that the appellant helped some of his
countrymen arrested by the Japanese certainly does not
exempt him from criminal liability.
The appealed judgment, being in conformity with the
facts and the law, is affirmed. So ordered with costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason,

Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

PARAS, J.:

Mr. Justice G. Pablo voted for the affirmance.

Judgment affirmed.

791

VOL. 84, OCTOBER 25, 1949 791

Estrada vs. Caseda

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001756df217182aac1742003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/4