A soldier of the Philippine Constabulary, which was merged with the USAFFE at the outbreak of the Pacific War, appellant surrendered with his unit to the Japanese army about two months after said unit withdrew from Cebu City. He became sergeant of the Bureau of Constabulary under the Japanese regime.

On September 3, 1944, he took part, together with other undercovers in the service of the Japanese Aivay, in the maltreatment of Teoxilo Ponce and Tereso 3aso, and in their investigation as to their connection with and knowledge of the whereabouts of the guerrillas. Their maltreatment and torture took place at Cabadiangan, municipality of Liloan, Cebu, where Teofilo ponce had been previously apprehended by appellant and his companions in the early morning. Appellant and companions were looking for Governor Hilario Abellana, whom they did not catch at the ti.ie. Sometime thereafter, Governor Abellana was arrested and liquidated by the Japanese.

From Cabadiangan, Teofilo Ponce and Tereso Saso were brought by appellant and his group to the market place of Tamiao and there they saw also arrested by appellant's group Francisco, Evaristo, Epifanio and Victorio Magdadaro. Francisco llaguadaro was, on the same day, finally killed on the spot by appellant and his companions.

Tile above facts have been conclusively proved by the testimonies of Teofilo Ponce and Tereso 3aso and partly corroborated by appellant himself and his witnesses with respect to appellant1s membership in the Bureau of Constabulary during the Japanese regime. Appellant has never questioned the motives of the witnesses for the prosecution and there is no reason why their veracity should be doubted.

Appellant attempted to put alibi as defense, alleging that, at the time the facts narrated by the witnesses for the prosecution happened, he was in the constabulary barracks in Barill, serving as .ness sergeant and engaged in buying foodstuffs in tiio Barili market. To support his contention he offered the testimony of Florentino Villarta, a detainee in the provincial jail for treason, and the declarations of Jose Alviar and an indictee. Alviar testified that he v;as in coin.iand of the barracks; that during all the time that he was in Barili, appellant never separates frosn the cony any, never got out fron the garrison, never separated from him, and all the time has been unocr his observation. To ;nake the alibi as air-tight as possible, Alviar v:ould almost convey the idea that appellant was as Much his companion as the Saraar tv;ins v.cre. This yarn is an index of the nature of the testimonies presented by appellant in support of his alibi, waking it completely unbelievable. It is unnecessary to consider the testimony of Anbrosio Velasquez,, another witness of appellant, v/ho testified that in February, 1945, he brought appellant from Cebu City to the mountains, where they regained until the end of llarch, 1945. Velasquez is confined in prison for illegal possession of fircarn ana his testimony, even if accepted, would not belie appellant's participation in the investigation and torture of Teofilo Ponce and Tcreso Saso and in the killing of Francisco Magdauaro.

The facts proved by the evidence on record shoiv -inconclusively that appellant adhered to the enemy, by giving him aid and comfort and,therefore, has committed the crime of treason which is punishable under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion uerpetua and to pay a fine of P10,000.00 and the costs. The sentence, being supported by the facts and the law, is affirmed.