Jose B. Dimzon testified that two men, whom he knew to be residents of Cabatuan, Iloilo, were beaten to death by the Japanese while they were being held prisoners at Iloilo High School. The two were being held prisoners together with another group of 6 men. The six men survived their beatings but were eventually beheaded. Dimzon was also a prisoner but held in another room, separate from the 8 men.

Dimzon indicated that the residence of the two men was Cabatuan, Iloilo three times, here, here and here.

Below are portions of his testimony that are directly related to the incident with links to their locations in the full testimony. The full testimony is available at the bottom. The defense was trying to impeach the witness, Dimzon, that Dimzon was giving inconsistent dates but Dimzon claimed that he did try to correct the date with the investigating U.S. army officer.


CHARGE
That Jiro MOTOKI, ISN 51J-150361, formerly Captain in the Imperial Japanese Army, during the time and at the places hereinafter specified and while a state of war existed between the United States of America, its allies and dependencies, and Japan, did violate the laws and customs of war.

SPECIFICATION 1
In that, Jiro MOTOKI, in or about the month of June, 1944, during a time of war between the United States of American, its allies and dependencies, and Japan, did, at Iloilo City, Iloilo, Philippines, unlawfully permit members of the Imperial Japanese Army then under his command to torture and brutally mistreat about eight unidentified, unarmed, noncombatant civilians, as a consequence of which two of the said persons died, and did unlawfully order the execution of six unidentified, unarmed, noncombatant civilians, in violation of the laws of war.

SPECIFICATION 2
In that Jiro MOTOKI, in the month of June, 1944, during a time of war between the United States of America, its allies and dependencies, and Japan, did, at or near barrio Arevalo, Iloilo, Philippines, unlawfully kill four unarmed, noncombatant civilians, including Eriberto PAVILLAR and Esting PARCON, in violation of the laws of war,.

1944jun24-1 Q Were you ever arrested by the Japanese forces in Panay? A Yes, sir. Q When and where were you arrested? A I was arrested June 24, 1944. Q How do you know that the date on which you were arrested was June 24? A Because I remember the date, sir. It was the first time we were confined under the garrison in the high school. Q Where were you arrested? A I was arrested about 30 meters from my house on the corner of Blanco and Iznart Streets. That is, more or less, 30 meters. Q Who arrested you? A Six Japanese soldiers under the command of Motoki with the Kempei Tai companion, Juan Sumagaysay. Q Did you know the names of any of the Japanese soldiers? A I forget the names, sir, but as far as I remember, I remember one of the Japanese officers, that was Sergeant Kawashimo, and then Motoki. Q Was Sergeant Kawashimo under the command of Motoki? A Yes, sir.

1944jun24-2 The Iloilo High School where Jose B. Dimzon was imprisoned. Toshimi Kumai with students of the Iloilo National High School in 2001. Q At the time that you were arrested on June 24, 1944, were you imprisoned? A Yes. Q Where were you imprisoned? A Under the garrison at the high school building.

eightmen-1 Q During the time that you were imprisoned on this ground floor of this school building, did you see other prisoners then? A In my own room where I was confined I was alone but in another room there was prisoners. Q What distance were these prisoners from you? A The distance of the other door from my own place of 26 confinement was more or less six meters. Q What was the construction, what constituted the walls of the other cell to which you refer? A The construction of the other cell was different from my own cell; whereas in mine only the front wall was made of wire and the other walls were conorote, while the other cell consisted of one concrete and of three wire walls. Q From your cell, state whether or not you could clearly see the other prisoners to whom you refer. A I could see them clearly from where I was. Q Do you know the names of any of them? A I do not know any names. Q How many prisoners were there? A Eight prisoners. Q What was their nationality? A Filipinos. #cabatuan-1 Q Do you know the approximate ages of the prisoners? A Two of the prisoners were more or less forty years old. Six of the prisoners were around the age of twenty. Q You stated that you did not know the names of the prisoners. Did you know the faces or had you seen them before? A Only two of them I recognized their faces. Q Do you know where the two were from, what place? A I know that they are from the town of Cabatuan. Q While you were imprisoned, did you see anything happen to the eight prisoners? A Yes. Q What did you see happen? 27 A They were beaten. Q Do you remember how long this occurred after you entered the prison? A I saw the beating of the prisoners on the second day of my detention. 28 Q Will you tell in detail what you saw? A The people, upon their arrival, were beaten and two of them fell on the floor bathing with blood. At about three or four o'clock in the afternoon, the two people who fell on the floor were tied on the hands and neck by one person whose name was Juan Sumagaysay. Another Japanese took hold of the feet of those two persons and brought them outside. At that time the other six persons were brought out one by one from their cells. Q What time of day did this beating occur, approximately? A The beating started between about seven or eight in the morning. Q Who was doing the beating? A Sergeant Kawashimo, in the presence of Motoki. Q Was there any other person assisting or present during this beating? A The persons who did the beating were Vicente Morata, two Japanese soldiers and Sergeant Kawashimo. Q Who was Vicente Morata? A Vicente Morata was one of the secret agents of the Japenose working in the garrison. Q Do you know where he is now? A He is dead. Q Will you describe further as to the beatings? What was the beating done with? A They were beaten with a piece of wood, round piece of wood. Q What was the size of that piece of wood? 29 A About three inches, more or less, in diameter. Q What was the length of the wood? A More or less two feet in length. Q Who actually did the beating? A Sergeant Kawashimo and Vicente Morata, and two Japanese. All of them participated in the beating. Q How many clubs did they have? A Only two of them had a stick. Sergeant Kawashimo was the one holding the rounded piece of wood and one of the Japanese soldiers was using a flat piece of wood. Q What was the size of that piece of wood? A Two inches by two inches. Q What was the length of the wood? A More or less three and a half feet in length. Q What was the sex of these prisoners? A All of them were men. Q Did you see each one of them beaten? A Yes, each one of them were beaten. Q How long did this beating take place? How long did it last? A It started about seven or eight o'clock in the morning up to after lunch time, about one o'clock. Q What did the men say, if anything, while they were being beaten? A The prisoners, while being beaten, were pleading and hollering for their mothers and as they shouted the more they beat them. Q Can you state whether or not the shouts of the prisoners could be heard throughout the school building? 30 MR. SIMON: I will object to that as to not being within the knowledge of this witness. There is no foundation. COLONEL WORTMAN: Any further comment by the prosecution? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The witness is in the building. He knows the size of the building. He knows the extent of the shouting and he should be able to state whether or not the shout could be heard throughout the school building. COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is sustained. You may proceed. Q Can you state whether or not, taking into consideration, the size of the school building that the shouts of the prisoners could be heard on the second floor? MR. SIMON: Same objection, sir. I would like to also add to my objection the fact that this witness couldn't possibly know. This witness couldn't possibly know that the shouting could be heard on the second floor. He couldn't know whether any noise could be heard. It would depend on the noise on the second floor, and the activity in and about the building at that particular time that the shouting was going on. COLONEL WORTMAN: Any further comments? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir. I think that the witness definitely should be able to state that as a matter of his opinion and, thereafter, oncross-examination if the defense will show that he does not know that, it could be stricken on motion. I think he could make a short-handed 31 statement, "that in my opinion I could hear it on the second floor." COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the prosecution have any objection to inserting the word "normally" have been heard on the second floor. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No, sir. I have no objection. COLONEL WORTMAN: With that rewording of the question would the defense continue its objection? MR. SIMON: Sir, the defense will continue the objection on the ground that it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, whether shouting could be normally heard on the second floor because it would depend on whether conditions were normal at that time. That foundation will have to be laid before such a question could be asked and have any bearing at all. COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the prosecution intend to reword the question and insert the word "normally"? 32 LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will if you so desire, sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: If you will, please. As I understand it, the defense still objects to the question in that form. MR. SIMON: Yes, sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is not sustained and the witness will answer the question. Will the reporter read the last question? (The last question was read by the reporter.) COLONEL WORTMAN: I will ask the prosecution to restate the question. Q Taking into consideration the size and construction of the building, are you able to state whether or not this shouting that you heard could normally be heard by persons on the second floor? A If one stays on the upper floor right about the place of the prisoners, the shouts could be heard. Q Approximately what time of day was it when two of the prisoners went down on the floor? A Approximately eight o'clock in the morning. Q Approximately what time of day were they carried out of the building? A It was after four o'clock, more or less, in the afternoon. Q During all the time from the time they went down on the floor until they were carried from the building, did you remain constantly in your cell? A I was in my cell. 33 Q Were they in a position on the floor in which you could see them at all times? A I could see them; the position where they were lying on their abdomen on the floor. Q During all that time state whether or not they moved in any way. A From the time those two people fell on the floor up to the time they were brought out in the afternoon, I did not see them move. I was attentive in looking at them and it was only about six meters. Q Could you see whether or not the men breathed during this time? A Yes, I could see if they were breathing or not because if they were breathing naturally they will move. COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the prosecution mind asking the witness whether or not they were actually breathing? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He said, sir, that they were breathing and he could see them. COLONEL WORTMAN: I would just like to have you ask that question, please, to clarify that point, if you don't mind. Q Will you state whether or not the two men on the floor were breathing? A The way I looked at them they were not breathing. Q I will come back to the two men later. Going to the other prisoners, you stated that they were taken out one by one. What time of day were they taken out of the cell? A It was about four or five o'clock in the afternoon. 34 Q Who took them from the cell? A Two Japanese, Sergeant Kawashimo and Vicente Morata. Q Prior to the time that they were taken from the cell did you see the accused, Motoki, present at or in the cell? A Yes, I saw him. Q Was Motoki inside the cell or outside the cell? A He went inside the cell. Q State whether or not you heard the conversation between Motoki and Sergeant Major Kawashimo. MR. SIMON: Will the prosecution make that more definite as to the time? COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you have any objection to making it more definite as to time and to eliminating the leading characteristics of your question? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Sir, I know no way other than to put it, can you state whether or not you heard a conversation. COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you can ask that, but your original question was "did you hear a conversation between so and so". I believe I am correct in that. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter read the original question back? (The last question was read back by the reporter.) MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, counsel joins in that request that he eliminate the objectionable portion -- the conversation between Motoki and Sergeant Major Kawashimo -- that be eliminated from the question also. 35 COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that your only objection now to the question the way it stands? MR. SIMON: Yes, sir. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will rephrase the question. COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you withdraw your objection on that basis? MR. SIMON: Yes, sir. Q At the time you saw Motoki in the cell were there other persons present than the prisoners and Motoki? A I saw inside the cell Kawashimo, Motoki and two Japanese soldiers and Vicente Morata. Q At this time did you hear a conversation? State whether or not you heard a conversation between Motoki and any of the other persons present. A I saw Motoki talk with somebody inside the cell although I cannot hear what he was speaking. The only word which I heard was the last word in Japanese that was "Korosu Do." Q Is that the only word that you heard or is that the only word that you remember? A That is the only word I heard and that is the only word I can remember. Q Did you know or did you learn the meaning of that word? A I do not know the meaning of that word. Q Did you later learn from other persons the meaning of that word. A Yes. Q What did you learn the meaning to be? 36 MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, the best evidence of what this word means would be a word from the official interpreter. I request that the information come from official sources. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I was just going to suggest that as soon as I got the complete story of this word. COLONEL WORTMAN: If the defense has no objection I think the prosecution should be permitted to go ahead along the line he is going with the understanding that he is going to definitely establish the true meaning of that word. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I suggest we go ahead and ask the interpreter what that word means in Japanese. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you make any such request to the interpreter that you want to make in connection with that word or any other word? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the Japanese interpreter at this time give us the meaning of the word "Korusu Do?" INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: "Korusu Do" means I will kill. COLONEL WORTMAN: Let the record show that the witness on the stand repeated the word that he heerd through the official interpreter. The official interpreter states the word or phrase means, "I will kill." Is that correct, or not, Interpreter? INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: That is correct. COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the defense have any objection to that interpretation? MR. SIMON: No objection. 37 COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that satisfactory to the prosecution? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well,you may proceed on that basis. 38 MR. SIMON: Sir, there is some question here whether Korosu Do means "I will kill" or "kill you". I request interpretation on that. COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. Will the witness again state the word or phrase which he said he heard to the official interpreter? A Korosu Do. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the official interpreter tell the Commission what that means when translated into english? INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: You may take it as "I will kill" or "I will kill you". COLONEL WORTMAN: Let the record show that the phrase referred to means "I will kill" or "I will kill you". Is that interpretation satisfactory to the defense? MR. SIMON: Sir, the defense would request whether or not the word also means "I will kill you" or, in other words, the word could mean he, I, or you, or "I will kill you". COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you ask a direct question to the official interpreter and clarify that? MR. SIMON: Well, does that word also mean "I will kill you? INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: There is no subject in the sentence so you can take it "he" or "I", "he will kill", "I will kill". COLONEL WORTMAN: Now I want the official interpreter to give us the interpretation that may be placed on that Japanese expression. 39 INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: "I will kill", it could be "he will kill"; you can put "you", "I will kill you". COLONEL WORTMAN: I will ask the interpreter to give a clear and specific translation of that word when translated into the English language. How many different meanings does it have? INTERPRETER BABA: The meaning of the word is "I will kill" but the person is not definite, Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: All right. Again I ask you to give this Commission the interpretation, as many different interpretations as you can give that word when translated into the English language. INTERPRETER BABA: It may mean "I will kill", "I will kill you", and "you will be killed". COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that three different translations, three different meanings? INTERPRETER BABA: Yes. COLONEL WORTMAN: Read them over rgain. INTERPRETER BABA: "I will kill", "I will kill you" and "you will be killed". COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, is that interpretation satisfactory to the defense? MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: Is it satisfactory to the prosecution? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed on that basis. 40 BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Q Did you clearly hear this word or words come from the mouth of Motoki? A Yes, very clear. COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess for ten minutes. (Short recess.) COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session. INTERPRETER BABA: Sir, I would like to add to the word "Korosu Zo" that in that particular phrase the word "threat" is contained in the case of the word "Korosu Zo". There is a threatening meaning in that. COLONEL WORTMAN: Threatening meaning? INTERPRETER BABA: Yes. As I have said before, the person is indefinite and it depends upon who is saying it, and to whom it is addressed, but it is a sort of threat to kill. COLONEL WORTMAN: Is there any objection by the defense to that additional translation placed on the word referred to a while ago? MR. SIMON: Sir, if I understand it correctly this is not an additional interpretation but rather the final interpretation that "Korosu Zo" is a threat of death or a threat to kill but with no subject attached to it and that the previous statements "I will kill" or "you will be killed" no longer stand in this record. COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comment by the prosecution? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I would like for any statement of that type to come from the lips of the interpreter. 41 COLONEL WORTMAN: The understanding of the Commission a moment ago was that the translation of the word in question was as interpreted by the interpreter. He gave three different meanings that the word might have. Is that correct or not? INTERPRETER BABA: I would like to correct that, Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: Now, is this an amplification? INTERPRETER BABA: This will be a correction that the person cannot be definite and therefore I would like to retract my statement saying "I" or "you", any subject. COLONEL WORTMAN: All right. INTERPRETER BABA: The Japanese sentence can't be complete without a subject. In this case it would be difficult for me to say whether "I" or "you" because --although I can't definitely state what it is in this case, because it is just a word that was heard. COLONEL WORTMAN: We have spent considerable time on this interpretation. With a view to avoiding any mistake in interpretation that may be placed on the word in question I am going to ask you again to give the meanings that that word may convey. INTERPRETER BABA: The word "Korosu Zo" means to kill or to put to death and "Korosu Zo" is a form for constituting a threat. The subject itself is indefinite, that is it could be first person or third person. COLONEL WORTMAN: Now, is that identical with the interpretation you placed on that word a few moments 42 ago except for the fact that you say that it has a sort of threat characteristic? INTERPRETER BABA: Yes, Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that true? INTERPRETER BABA: It has a threat characteristic. Yes Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: With that further amplification, is the defense satisfied with the interpretation, translation of the word in question? MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir. COLONEL WORTMAN: The prosecution? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, I am satisfied. COLONEL WORTMAN: You may proceed, on that basis. BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Q After you heard Motoki say this word, or words, what did you see Motoki do? A He left through the door of the cell and went upstairs. Q After Motoki went upstairs, what did you see happen? A I saw that the prisoners were brought outside one by one. Q In what direction did they go outside? A Towards the plaza of the high school ground. Q What door did you see the prisoners taken out from a door of the school building? A The door that faces the east. Q Is that door the front door, the door on the left side or to the rear? 43 MR. SIMON: I will object to it being too vague and ambiguous a question. COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is sustained. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May I be heard on this? COLONEL WORTMAN: You may. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I want to know where the door was, was it the front door, the back door, in the left or in the right part of the school building? I want to get him out of the building. COLONEL WORTMAN: That is what the Commission would like to have you establish but I think you can do that by direct questioning and by the use of short sentences and get a much clearer idea of what you are trying to establish. Q Did you see, I ask you again, did you see the prisoner taken out of a door of the school building? A Yes. Q Did they go out the front door of the school building? A The door behind the school building. Q You stated that they were taken one by one. Will you state whether you mean in a row or one taken from a cell each time? A When I said they were taken one by one I mean they are taken one after another. Q Was there an interval of time between the taking of the prisoners? Was there any time elapsed from the time the first prisoner was taken until the time the second prisoner was taken? A There was an interval of about five or ten minutes. 44 Q Will you state whether or not the prisoners were tied at the time they were taken out of the school building? A They were tied. Q How were they tied? A All of them, their hands were tied behind their back and some of them aside from the fact that their hands were tied behind their back it was connected with another string to their neck. Q Who took the six prisoners out? A Kawashimo, the two Japanese and Vicente Morata. Q Did you know the two Japanese? A I do not know them. Q Can you state whether or not they were soldiers? A They were soldiers. Q How long after Motoki went upstairs was it before the first prisoner of the six was taken out? A Motoki went upstairs. It was about ten minutes more or less after when the prisoners were started to be taken out. Q Did you see each of the six prisoners who were bound taken from the building? A I saw them. Q Did Sergeant Kawashimo return to the building after the last of those six prisoners were taken out? A Yes, Kawashimo returned to the building. Q What, if anything, did you see him do? A Through my cell I saw him wiping his sword. He was wiping blood from his sword and I also saw his clothes Splattered with blood. Q How long was that after the last of the six prisoners were taken out of the door? 45 A More or less one hour. Q Is that one hour after the last of the six prisoners was taken from the building? A Yes, more or less one hour after the last prisoner was taken from the building. Q Where were the two prisoners who were on the floor during the time from the taking of the first of the six prisoners until the taking of the last of the six prisoners? A They were slammed to the floor with their face downwards. Q After the last of the six prisonors was marched out, did the Japanese keep a guard at the door of the cell where the two prisoners were on the floor? A. One of the Japanese soldiers who was with them went back to the cell where they had been. Q What happened at that time? A Vicente Morata also returned to the cell after the first Japanese soldier has returned, tied a rope on the neck of the prisoner connecting the neck and the hands which is tied behind his back, then held the rope and the other Japanese took hold of the feet and in that position they carried the prisoners, one by one, to the outside building. Q Were the two prisoners carried by your cell in this manner? A The two prisoners were carried in this position but not in front of my cell but through the door of the cell where they have been, a distance only of about six meters more or less. Q Were these two men both dead at the time they were carried out? 46 A They were dead. Q Are you sure of that? A I am sure they were dead.

Q Did you report to Lieutenant Sustento the killing of these eight men on June 24, 1944? A Yes, I have reported. Q And when did you make that report? A When I came out. Q And when was that? A The first of July, 1944. Q You were confined at Iloilo High School from the 24th of June until the 1st of July 1944? A No, I was detained four nights only. MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read back the previous question and answer? COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the previous question and answer back, please? (The last question and answer were read by the reporter.) Q Now, were you released from the jail on the 1st of July or on the 28th of June, 1944? A I was released 28 June 1944 about two or three o'clock in the afternoon.

Q Were any questions asked of you while you were being held by the Japanese? A They did not ask me any questions. Q Did they beat you or mistreat you in any way? A I was beaten by Major -- by Sergeant Kawashimo together with two other Japanese soldiers. They were accusing me for being a member of the G 2. Q And what day was that when Sergeant Kawashimo beat you? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I see no relevance in the question. MR. SIMON: Sir, the man is testifying that he had observed that these eight men were being held and watched everything they did. He seems to have been pretty busy himself at or about this same time. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will withdraw the objection provided he can prove that point. COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed. MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read the question, please? (The last question was read by the reporter.) A At about seven o'clock in the evening on the night of June 24th. Q How long did he beat you? A They hang me and beat me with pieces of wood. Q How long did that continue? A More or less thirty minutes. They hang me on my hands tied behind my back, my toes were the only ones touching the floor. 75 Q They beat you about the head? A One time I was struck behind the neck -- Q With what type of instrument? A -- and on my hands and my thighs. Q What did they hit you on the head with? A They hit me on the head with a rounded piece of wood. Q Did they knock you unconscious? A The first time I was hit on the head I was unconscious. MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read back this last question, please? COLONEL WORTMAN: Just a moment. Was that "unconscious" or "conscious"? A Unconscious. Q And for how long were you unconscious? A More or less ten minutes. Q Has your head bothered you since that time? A After that time when I was struck behind my head I feel the pain on that portion of my head for about one month. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read that last statement back, please? (The last statement was read by the reporter.) Q Were you hung facing the wall of your cell? A They did not hang me inside my cell. They hang me inside the cell where the eight people were beaten. Q Did they take you from your cell into the cell that these eight men were? A Yes, they took me there. Q And that was about fifteen minutes -- that was when they were beating you between seven and seven thirty that night? 76 LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I am not sure whether the witness is saying that the eight men were there or that the eight men were not there at that time. MR. SIMON: My recollection of this witness' testimony now is that he was taken from his cell to the cell where the eight men were and there were eight men there. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I am not sure he said whether the eight men were there. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense please clarify that point? Q When were you taken to that cell and being hung, and what time was that? INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: May I have the question again, please? COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you read the question back, please? (The last question was read by the reporter.) A More or less seven thirty. Q And were the eight men in that cell at that time? A The eight men were not yet there. Q And how long were you kept in that cell? A More or less thirty minutes. Q And what time was it -- where were you taken from there? A I was again taken inside my former room, the dark room. Q And who placed you in that dark room, was it Sergeant Kawashimo? A Yes, Sergeant Kawashimo and another Japanese soldier. Q And was it at that time that the eight Japanese were brought into their cell? 77 LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Counsel, do you mean to say eight Japanese? MR. SIMON: Strike that, -- eight Filipinos. A The eight Filipinos were not yet there. Q What time was it when they were brought to the cell? A I stayed already two evenings in my cell as a prisoner and the following morning about seven o'clock the eight Filipinos arrived. MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read that last answer, please? (The last answer was read by the reporter.) Q It was on June 27th that the eight Filipinos were put in that cell? A 26th of June. Q And what time in the morning was that when they were brought to that cell? A More or less seven o'clock in the morning. Q You previously stated that at seven-thirty at night these prisoners were brought to the cell. Now which is it? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I object to that question. I made special note that counsel questioned him for a long time after he said seven o'clock that it was seven o'clock he was talking about in the evening. I made a note here of the particular point. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the last question back, please? (The last question was read by the reporter.) MR. SIMON: May I add, Sir, that my recollection of this testimony, as I have it in my notes is that this witness 78 testified he was put into the cell about 1800 24th of June and about seven-thirty that night those men were brought in there and were beaten and that Kawashimo and Motoki were with them -- LIEUTENANT FINLEY: At the same time witness said seven-thirty and they continued to examine him at seven-thirty in the night whereas he was definitely brought in at seven-thirty in the morning. I made special note to straighten that out on redirect. I suggest that he ask the witness the question what date was it and take it up from there. COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission desires that the defense ask appropriate questions to definitely establish the time of arrival of the eight prisoners. Q Will you tell this Commission at what time of day and date the eight men were brought to the cell in Iloilo High School? A About seven A.M. -- I mean in the morning, 26 June, more or less. Q And how long were these men kept in that jail? A These men were kept in the cell beginning 26 June from seven A.M. to between three and four in the afternoon. At five o'clock they were released one after another. LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May I inquire whether the interpreter said they were released? A They were not released but were sent out. COLONEL WORTMAN: What were the witness' words "sent out" or "taken out"? INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: Taken out one by one. 79 COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the interpreter be careful about the use of those words to make it exactly the words the witness gives you, please? That is in accordance with my notes that were made at the time. INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: They were taken out. That is the only correction, Sir. Q On the morning of the 26th, were any of these eight men taken out of the cell into another portion of the building? INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: May I have the question again, please? (The question was read by the reporter.) A No. Q Was all the torturing and beating done in that cell where they were first held? A Yes. Q And how big a room is the room in which they were held? A The size of the room was two meters by eight meters, approximately, divided by a wire fence in the middle. Q And were the prisoners all kept in one section of the room? A They were placed there in one room. Q And when they were taken for questioning or beating were they taken into the other portion or partitioned-off section of that cell? A The very same place where they were confined. Q And were all eight kept in half of that room, the partitioned-off half? A Yes. 80 Q And who was in the other portion of the cell? A It was empty. Q And how many Japanese soldiers were in that cell beating and torturing those men that morning? A Two Japanese soldiers, Kawashimo and Vicente Morata -- there were four in all. 81 Q Were there pillars and posts between your cell and the place where these men were confined? A There were pillars between my room and the room where the eight men were confined, but they were far apart in such a way that I could see clearly what is happening in their room. Q Was all the beating and investigation conducted on the side of the cell closest to you? A Yes, because the distance of that place to my room was more or less six meters. Q What time was it when you noticed those two men lying on the floor of the cell? A More or less seven o'clock in the morning. Q When they were brought into the cell at seven o'clock in the morning were these two men put on the floor? A They were not placed there on the floor. They were standing with their hands tied. Q Did you observe those two men being beaten? A Yes, I saw. Q Did they beat two or more prisoners at the same time? A They had two sticks for beating simultaneously. They beat two at a time. Q These two men that you later saw on the floor, were they beaten simultaneously that morning? COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense use some word other than "simultaneously" with the thought that the witness might not know exactly what that means? 82 MR. SIMON: Sir, the interpreter suggested that to me in his answer when he said they were beaten simultaneously and I am giving it right back to him in the same way I got it. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the interpreter verify whether or not the witness understands the word "simultaneously". I am reasonably sure he does, but I want to be sure. INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: You mean the English word "simultaneously". THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand. COLONEL WORTMAN: What does it mean? THE WITNESS: These two persons were beaten by each Japanese soldier at the same time. COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. You may proceed. Q Where were the other six men kept while these first two men were being beaten? A The six people were right there in the room watching the beating. They were guarded by the Japanese with a rifle. They cannot run away because they were tied. Q Will you tell the Commission the best you remember about the details of the beating of these two men? A When the two men were being beaten the first blow, one of the first blows, struck one of the men right on the back of his ear, or right in the ears. I noted that the ear was injured badly, the ear was crushed, and his head was cracked. He groaned and his last words were "My God." 83 Q Did he fall to the ground? A Yes, he fell down. Q Did you see if he was breathing at that time? A At that time he was still moving and breathing. Q What happened to this other man? A Kawashimo applied to him a judo hold and cast him on the floor where he landed on his back. Then Kawashimo jumped on his abdomen and then on his mouth and I noticed that his mouth was badly battered. While the man was lying on his back on the floor groaning and moving, one of the Japanese soldiers took hold of his rifle and struck him with the rifle butt and beat him with the butt of the rifle on the lower abdomen. Q What happened after that? COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the defense mind fixing the exact place that this man was struck with the butt of the rifle? Q Would you tell the Commission where this Filipino was struck with the butt of the rifle? COLONEL WORTMAN: All right, let us have that explanation. A A little above his private parts. COLONEL WORTMAN: Fix the distance, please, will you defense counsel? Q How far above his private parts was he struck? Will you indicate that? MR. SIMON: Let the record indicate that the witness gestured to where the Filipino was hit with the rifle butt. 84 COLONEL WORTMAN: How far above his private parts? That is the question the Commission would like to have the defense counsel establish. Was it one foot, six inches or one inch? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Would it be satisfactory if the record indicated he indicated a point just below the center of the fly on his trousers? COLONEL WORTMAN: No. That will not be satisfactory. I want the distance above his private parts that he was hit with the butt of the gun closely established. Will you asked an appropriate question and fix that, please? A I cannot fix definitely how many inches it was because he had pants on at that time, but it is somewhere here (indicating). 85 COLONEL WORTMAN: I ask the defense counsel again to fix approximately the distance the man was struck with the butt of the rifle above his private parts. MR. SIMON: The defense would like to enter a stipulation on the basis of the witness' gesture. The defense will stipulate subject to approval of the Commission and prosecution that the Filipino was struck with the butt of the rifle approximately six inches above his private parts. COLONEL WORTMAN: Will that stipulation meet with the approval of the prosecution? LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Four to six inches, sir, will be satisfactory. A Midway between his navel and private parts. COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that what the witness said? INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: Yes. COLONEL WORTMAN: That stipulation is approved by the Commission. Q Had any of these other six men been beaten prior to this time? A Previous to the beating of the two Filipinos, the six were not yet beaten. Q What time did they start beating those other six Filipinos? A It was more or less from nine to twelve. Q Was the Filipino who was hit with the butt of the rifle moaning and groaning on the floor of his cell? A The moaning and groaning of the man that was hit with the butt of the rifle lasted for more or less one hour. 86 Q Did you see the bodies of any of these men since June 24 1944? A I did not see them June 24. I only saw them June 26 when they were brought in as prisoners in the cell.

twomen-1 BY MR. SIMON: Q Did you examine the bodies of the six men that were taken from the cell one at a time after June 24, 1944? A I didn't examine each body but I saw the bodies there. Q And where did you see those bodies? A At the room where they were beaten. Q After Sergeant Kawashimo took them from the room, did you see any of those six men since that time? A No more. 88 Q Did you know where any of these six men lived? A None. Q Did you see where Sergeant Kawashimo took these men? A I saw where they were taken. Q Did you see anything that Sergeant Kawashimo or any Japanese did to these men? A I didn't see because they were behind my prison cell. When they came out I didn't see them any more. Q In fact, you don't know what happened to these six men? A I did not see the six men because they were taken away and it was behind my prison cell. Q Now, in regard to the two men that you did see, what time were they taken from the cell? A More or less four o'clock in the afternoon. Q Were their hands tied at eight o'clock on the morning of June 26, 1944? A Yes, their hands were tied. Q And that afternoon on June 24, 1944, did you see someone further tie these two men? A I did not see anyone except Morata connecting the ropes to the neck, aided by one Japanese soldier. Q Wasn't it Sumagaysay that tied the hands of these two men by a rope to their neck? A No, sir. Q And when was the last time that you saw these two men? A When they were taken outside. #cabatuan-2 Q And do you know where these two men reside? A I know. 89 Q Do you know their names? A I don't know their names. Q Where do these two men reside? A In Cabatuan. Q Did you visit Cabatuan since June 26, 1944? A No, sir. Q How large a town, or barrio, is Cabatuan? A It is a second or third-class town, more or less. Q Approximately how many people live there? A More or loss fifteen thousand. Q Do you know many people at Cabatuan? A I know many of them and I don't know many of them, too. Q Will the interpreter check back the witness about the fifteen thousand? Is that the correct figure he said? A Fifteen thousand. Q How many? A Fifteen thousand. 90

eightmen-2 "A Yes, on 27 of April 1943, I was captured in my house by a Filipino spy named Juan Sumagaysay, now dead, and six Japanese soldiers. I was brought to the Iloilo High School garrison and there once more I was tortured and badly beaten up for three full days. My hands were tied behind my back and my body was lifted so that my toes hardly touched the floor. I was slapped, kicked and struck with a piece of wood by Sergeant-Major Kawashimo who was the official torturer of the garrison. I was confined in a little cell for three days, during which I was tortured upon order of 1st Lt. Motoki, who was then acting as officer-in-charge of the Iloilo High School garrison. I saw him give the orders. "Q Did you ever witness any atrocity committed by members of the Iloilo High School garrison during your confinement there? "A Yes. During the time I was confined at the garrison jail I saw with my own eyes the torture of 141 eight Filipino prisoners by a Filipino spy named Vicente Morata, now dead. From my cell I saw how Morata clubbed to death two of these prisoners with a large stick of wood. Tho other six were tortured, but survived. This happened on or about May 3, 1943. Then I heard Lt. Motoki give orders to Sergeant Kawashimo to kill the six remaining prisoners. Motoki gave the orders in the Japanese language, but since I knew the meaning of some Japanese words, I plainly understood what he said. The last phrase he uttered was 'Kill them all'. I never saw any of these men again, because right after the orders were given I saw Sergeant Kawashimo lead them to the backyard of the school building, where they were disposed of. I am sure that they were slain because a few minutes afterwards I saw Kawashimo came back alone and wipe his blood-stained sword. His clothes were also stained with blood. #cabatuan-3 "Q Who were those eight victims? "A I don't know their names. They were civilians who were brought over from Cabatuan, Iloilo. All were young men from 14 to 18 years old.

FULL TESTIMONY

The Iloilo High School where Jose B. Dimzon saw what happened to eight men, two of them natives of Cabatuan, Iloilo. Toshimi Kumai with students of the Iloilo National High School in 2001.

JOSE DIMZON

a witness for the prosecution, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q What is your name?

A Jose Dimzon.

Q What is your age?

A Thirty-two years.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The procedure just outlined by the prosecution is approved by the Commission but in case it develops that this witness does not have a sufficient knowledge of the English language to intelligently answer questions asked him in the English language, it may then be advisable to use the Visayan interpreter continuously.

Q What is your occupation, Mr. Dimzon?

A Farming.

Q What is your religious preference?

A Catholic.

Q During the Japanese occupation what was your occupation?

A I beg your pardon?

Q During the Japanese occupation what was your employment?

A I was appointed by Dr. Caram* as puppet mayor of Dumangas on August 17, 1943.

Q How long did you remain the mayor of Dumangas?

A I assumed the post from August 17, 1943, up to October 18, 1944.

Q Before you accepted the appointment of mayor of Dumangas, state whether or not that appointment was approved by the guerrilla forces on Panay.*

Note from Ronnie Miravite Casalmir *Dimzon was appointed by the puppet governor of Iloilo, Dr. Caram, as puppet mayor of Dumangas, and subsequent to this appointment but before his acceptance he must have sought the ok to accept the position without being suspected or branded as a Japanese collaborator and mistaken-as-an-enemy of the local guerrillas, to which request the ok was given on the condition that he report the Japanese activities to the local guerrillas. This he did by providing a note to Lieutenant Simplicio Palma once a week during his term as puppet mayor of Dumangas, as he stated further below. This is similar to what happened in Cabatuan, Iloilo when local guerrillas were contacted to explain that the town was being forced by circumstances to surrender to the Japanese to evade the impending massacre of the townspeople, known as "juez de cuchillo," to avoid the town being mistaken as now pro-Japanese. The local guerrillas did not object to the planned surrender but provided instructions that Japanese movements be reported to them. See The Surrender. (A notable "juez de cuchillo" occurred in Batan, Aklan on October 19, 1942 when 74 men, women and children were rounded up and beheaded by the Japanese)

A Yes, sir.

Q After the liberation of the island of Panay by the American forces were you investigated by the CIC?

A No, sir.

Q Did the CIC make inquiries In the town of Dumangas as to your activities?

A Yes, sir.

Q Were you ever arrested by the CIC as a result of those inquiries?

A I beg your pardon, sir?

Q Were you ever arrested by the CIC as a result of these activities?

A No, sir.

Q When you ceased to be mayor of Dumangas in October 1944, what did you do from that time until the time of the return of the American forces to Panay?

A I was assigned as a Battalion S-2, 63d Infantry by Lieutenant Dominador Sustento.

Q Was this organization that you have just spoken of a guerrilla organization in Panay?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you remain with that organization until the return of the American forces?

A Yes, sir.

Q At the time that you were mayor of the town of Dumangas were you in communication with the guerrilla forces outside?

10

A Yes, sir.

Q What type or form of communications did you have with the guerrilla forces during that time?

A I sent once a week a note to our C. O., Lieutenant Simplicio Palma.

#1944jun24-1

Q Were you ever arrested by the Japanese forces in Panay?

A Yes, sir.

Q When and where were you arrested?

A I was arrested June 24, 1944.

Q How do you know that the date on which you were arrested was June 24?

A Because I remember the date, sir. It was the first time we were confined under the garrison in the high school.

Q Where were you arrested?

A I was arrested about 30 meters from my house on the corner of Blanco and Iznart Streets. That is, more or less, 30 meters.

Q Who arrested you?

A Six Japanese soldiers under the command of Motoki with the Kempei Tai companion, Juan Sumagaysay.

Q Did you know the names of any of the Japanese soldiers?

A I forget the names, sir, but as far as I remember, I remember one of the Japanese officers, that was Sergeant Kawashimo, and then Motoki.

Q Was Sergeant Kawashimo under the command of Motoki?

A Yes, sir.

MR. SIMON: Just one moment. I will move to strike

11

that answer unless a foundation is laid that this witness knows under whose command this sergeant was.

12

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will withdraw that question and restate it.

MR. SIMON: If the Commission please, will that answer be stricken from the record?

COLONEL WORTMAN: That answer will be stricken from the record. Do you withdraw your motion on that basis?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir.

Q How long had you been acquainted with Sergeant Major Kawashimo?

A I beg your pardon?

Q How long had you known Sergeant Major Kawashimo?

A The time when they were the ones residing in the garrison in the high school in Iloilo, I knew them.

Q Can you estimate the length of time before you were arrested during which you had known Kawashimo? Was it weeks, months, or days?

A I believe two months before that, more or less.

Q Do you know that Kawashimo had his office in the Iloilo High School Building?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you know that at that time Lieutenant Motoki also had his office in the high school building?

A Yes, sir.

MR. SIMON: Would it please the Commission that the prosecution be instructed not to continue to lead the witness with, do you know that this happened; "Yes," and, do you know that that happened, "Yes," but rather have the witness answer the location of places and happenings of events.

13

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you offer that in the form of an objection?

MR. SIMON: No, sir. It is just a request but I will continue offering that in any further line of questioning.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The prosecution will not employ loading questions on the direct examination of the witness.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Thank you, sir.

Q State whether or not you know who was the ranking officer of the Japanese army then having his office at the high school building?

MR. SIMON: I will object to that question. It is rather ambiguous.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is sustained. The question is a little bit long also.

Q Do you know who was the ranking Japanese officer in the high school garrison at that time?

MR. SIMON: I object to that question on the ground that no foundation has been laid that this witness is in a position to know who the ranking officer is. There is no foundation that this man is familiar with the rank in the Japanese army, or familiar with the organizational set-up of the Japanese garrison. COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comment from the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No comment.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is sustained.

Q Are you acquainted with the accused, Jiro Motoki?

A Yes, sir.

14

When did you first see Jiro Motoki?

A I first saw him last April 1943.

Q When did you learn his name?

Q Since that time, sir.

Q By "since that time," do you mean after that or at that time?

A Since that time, sir, is the first time I have heard his name.

Q Did you learn his name in April 1943?

A Yes, sir.

Q How did you learn his name?

A There was a name on his table, "Jiro Motoki."

Q Was that table located in the high school at Iloilo?

A Yes, sir.

Q How often did you see Motoki during the poriod which you knew him?

A Sometimes once a month and sometimes twice a month.

Q During those occasions where was it that you would see him?

A The time when I was arrested.

Q Do you now see Motoki in this court room?

A Yes, sir.

Q Will you point him out?

A That person, sir.

(Witness indicates.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: Have the witness go to the table and indicate the exact person to whom he is making reference now.

15

A This is Jiro Motoki, sir.

(Witness leaves stand and points to accused.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: Let the record show that the witness properly identified the accused.

16

Q Before you came to Manila as a witness in this case when is the last time that you saw Jiro Motoki?

A The time when we were brought down by Captain Yard to the general imprisonment camp.

Q Before you came back --

Q MR. SIMON: Just a moment, please. I object because the prosecution cut off the witness' answer and I move that the witness be permitted to completely answer the prosecution's question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Objection sustained. The witness will be permitted to completely answer to the last question.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter please read back the question and answer?

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, the defense requests that the reporter read back the portion of the answer given by the witness before he was cut off by the prosecution.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, the reporter will read the witness' answer to the last question and he will be afforded an opportunity to further amplify that answer if he so desires.

(The last answer was read by the reporter.)

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Do you intend --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Just a moment. Does the witness have any further amplification of his answer to that question?

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, I believe the witness has definitely not amplified the answer, but if it could be amplified --

17

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the witness have anything further to say in connection with the last question?

A I got it wrong, Sir, in interpreting the answer to the question, the word. "before" --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the question to the witness, and the witness will again answer the question.

(The last question and answer were read by the reporter.)

A June 24, 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is the defense satisfied with that answer to the question?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q When you stated the answer in reply to the original question did you understand the word "before"?

A I didn't understand the word "before."

Q After this incident in which you saw Motoki in June 1944, when was the next time that you saw him?

A The next time I saw him was when we were brought dovn by Captain Yard to general imprisonment camp.

Q Do you remember the approximate date of this event? How long ago was it when Captain Yard took you to the imprisonment camp?

A More or less two months ago.

Q At the time --

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission would like to have the question answered. There was a question asked the

18

witness before the last question which he did not answer. Will the prosecution take appropriate steps to see that his questions are answered?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter read back from the record where the questions are not answered?

(The last question and answer were read by the reporter.)

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: It is all one question, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: I think possibly that covers it.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the witness answer the question?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness appears to have answered both of your last two questions.

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q At the imprisonment camp when Captain Yard was there, did you see Jiro Motoki? Did you see him at the imprisonment camp?

A Yes, sir.

Q At the time that you saw him, will you tell us the circumstances under which you saw him? Was he alone?

A There were many of them.

MR. SIMON: It is apparent that the witness is having some difficulty --

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the Commission, I first offered to use an interpreter, but he requested that he be allowed to speak in English.

MR. SIMON: I was with this witness three hours yesterday. In my opinion, a Visayan interpreter would clear the matter up.

19

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is it the desire of the prosecution that a Visayan interpreter be used?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I asked the witness previously and he states he understands the question and I made the suggestion that he could use an interpreter if he did not understand.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Don't you believe that if he has difficulty in understanding some of the English language that it is the right and proper thing to do to have him communicate through the Visayan interpreter?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He has been instructed to do so in this courtroom.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comments by the defense?

MR. SIMON: Sir, the difficulty, I believe, with this witness about the testimony is that the questions are often double, there are often two or three incorporated into one question and that the witness is not permitted to answer each as it comes up. Let him answer a question before asking another and than perhaps We can proceed with the trial.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I suggest in return to that, Sir, if he has any objection that he put that objection at the time and not make a general objection.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do I understand that you made an objection there, Mr. Simon?

MR. SIMON: No, sir, it was just a suggestion to expedite the trial.

COLONEL WORTMAN: I think the suggestion of the defense is very well taken. I think there is a tendency on

20

the part of the prosecution to double the questions, and ask a second question before the question put to the witness has been completely answered. Will the prosecution take appropriate steps to correct that, please? If the prosecution desires to utilize a Visayan interpreter, the Commission would be only too glad to have you do that. What are your wishes in the matter?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will let the witness state what his decision is.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Well, the witness has already stated that he prefers to testify in the English language and the witness apparently desires to do that but it is apparent to this Commission that he does not understand the English, and therefore he will in the future communicate through the Visayan interpreter to insure that there will be no mistaken ideas about any question or any other communication with him.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Do I understand, Sir, that you mean that all questions will be put through the interpreter?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Yes, that is the direction of this Commission now.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Thank you, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is there any objection on the part of the defense?

MR. SIMON: No objection, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, is that agreeable with you?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY. Entirely, and I intended to do

21

it in the beginning and had offered him e Visayan interpreter. I told him when he wanted to testify in English he could and when he did not understand he could use the interpreter.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Of course, the Commission will decide, after learning whether or not the witness can speak the English language fluently, whether or not he will testify in the English language or whether he will testify in his own native Visayan language. In this particular case, the Visayan language will be used, --

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Thank you, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: -- and he will communicate through the interpreter from now on.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Thank you, Sir.

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q Will you tell us the circumstances under which you saw Jiro Motoki at the prison with Captain Yard?

A Yes, sir. We were brought by Captain Yard to the stockade and he showed us a number of Japanese for identification.

Q How many Japanese did he show you?

A I don't know.

Q Well, do you remember approximately how many Japanese did he show you?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Is the witness being questioned directly, now, or is he going to answer through the interpreter?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness will communicate through the interpreter.

22

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter read the question to the interpreter, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

A (Through Interpreter Praxedio Villaluz) More or less twelve Japanese.

Q What was the position of these Japanese at the time that you picked out Motoki?

MR. SIMON: Just a moment. I will object to that as assuming facts that are not in evidence and assumption that he did pick out Motoki from twelve Japanese, and I object to it as assuming facts.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The record shows that he went there and saw him in the group of Japanese. The record will bear me out, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is not sustained.

A The Japanese were standing.

Q Was there any suggestion by anyone present as to the identification of Motoki?

A No one.

Q When was the last time that you saw Motoki.

A The second time was the day before yesterday.

Q Where did you see Motoki the day before yesterday?

A Here in the stockade.

Q What were the circumstances under which you saw him at that time?

A He was standing and he was shown to me for identification and I identified him.

23

Q State whether or not more persons than Motoki ware present.

A He had companions. (In English)

Q How many companions did he have?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness will wait until the interpreter has communicated with him in the Visayan language.

A About three.

Q Do you know the nationality of these persons?

A They were Japanese.

Q Were the twelve persons that you referred to as present when Captain Yard took you to the prison -- I will rephrase that. What was the nationality of the twelve persons that were present when Captain Yard took you to the prison?

A They were Japanese.

#1944jun24-2

Q At the time that you were arrested on June 24, 1944, were you imprisoned?

A Yes.

Q Where were you imprisoned?

A Under the garrison at the high school building.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess for ten minutes.

(Short recess.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May the record show that the members of the Commission, the accused and his personal interpreter, the defense counsel and the prosecutor are present in the courtroom.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The prosecutor need not comment on the fact that the members of the Commission are present,

24

the prosecution, defense and accused are present, et cetera, except at the beginning of the morning session and at the beginning of the afternoon cession, unless there is some objection to that on the part of the defense or the prosecution.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I have no objection to that arrangement.

MR. SIMON: No objection, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. If in any instance a member of the Commission, or the accused or his counsel, or the prosecutor should be absent, that fact will be noted in the record on returning from short recesses.

You may proceed.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter read back the last couple of questions and answers so that I can pick up my questioning?

(The last two questions and answers wore rend by the reporter.)

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q What kind of a place was it in which you were imprisoned?

A Below a concrete stairway bounded by a wire fence.

Q Was that inside of the high school building at Iloilo?

A Yes, inside.

Q Tell us, briefly, the construction of that building, how the building is made.

A The high school building was made of concrete and wood. The stairway was made of concrete. The partition was also concrete. The flooring was made of lumber and the roof was galvanize

25

iron.

Q How many stories in height was the high school building?

A The high school building consistod of two floors. The first floor consisted of concrete ground floor and the second floor which is more or less six foot in height was made of wood.

Q Were you imprisoned on the ground floor or on the second floor made of wood?

A On the ground floor.

Q Assuming that you are standing in front of the school house, looking toward the school house, were you on your left or your right or on what part of the school building were you?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission desires that you reword your question. It is confusing, ambiguous and somewhat difficult for the witness to understand.

Q In what part of the building were you imprisoned?

A I was imprisoned below the stairway.

Q How many days were you imprisoned in this place?

A I was imprisoned in that place four nights and the following morning and the afternoon at two p. m., I was able to go out.

#eightmen-1

Q During the time that you were imprisoned on this ground floor of this school building, did you see other prisoners then?

A In my own room where I was confined I was alone but in another room there was prisoners.

Q What distance were these prisoners from you?

A The distance of the other door from my own place of

26

confinement was more or less six meters.

Q What was the construction, what constituted the walls of the other cell to which you refer?

A The construction of the other cell was different from my own cell; whereas in mine only the front wall was made of wire and the other walls were conorote, while the other cell consisted of one concrete and of three wire walls.

Q From your cell, state whether or not you could clearly see the other prisoners to whom you refer.

A I could see them clearly from where I was.

Q Do you know the names of any of them?

A I do not know any names.

Q How many prisoners were there?

A Eight prisoners.

Q What was their nationality?

A Filipinos.

#cabatuan-1

Q Do you know the approximate ages of the prisoners?

A Two of the prisoners were more or less forty years old. Six of the prisoners were around the age of twenty.

Q You stated that you did not know the names of the prisoners. Did you know the faces or had you seen them before?

A Only two of them I recognized their faces.

Q Do you know where the two were from, what place?

A I know that they are from the town of Cabatuan.

Q While you were imprisoned, did you see anything happen to the eight prisoners?

A Yes.

Q What did you see happen?

27

A They were beaten.

Q Do you remember how long this occurred after you entered the prison?

A I saw the beating of the prisoners on the second day of my detention.

28

Q Will you tell in detail what you saw?

A The people, upon their arrival, were beaten and two of them fell on the floor bathing with blood. At about three or four o'clock in the afternoon, the two people who fell on the floor were tied on the hands and neck by one person whose name was Juan Sumagaysay. Another Japanese took hold of the feet of those two persons and brought them outside. At that time the other six persons were brought out one by one from their cells.

Q What time of day did this beating occur, approximately?

A The beating started between about seven or eight in the morning.

Q Who was doing the beating?

A Sergeant Kawashimo, in the presence of Motoki.

Q Was there any other person assisting or present during this beating?

A The persons who did the beating were Vicente Morata, two Japanese soldiers and Sergeant Kawashimo.

Q Who was Vicente Morata?

A Vicente Morata was one of the secret agents of the Japenose working in the garrison.

Q Do you know where he is now?

A He is dead.

Q Will you describe further as to the beatings? What was the beating done with?

A They were beaten with a piece of wood, round piece of wood.

Q What was the size of that piece of wood?

29

A About three inches, more or less, in diameter.

Q What was the length of the wood?

A More or less two feet in length.

Q Who actually did the beating?

A Sergeant Kawashimo and Vicente Morata, and two Japanese. All of them participated in the beating.

Q How many clubs did they have?

A Only two of them had a stick. Sergeant Kawashimo was the one holding the rounded piece of wood and one of the Japanese soldiers was using a flat piece of wood.

Q What was the size of that piece of wood?

A Two inches by two inches.

Q What was the length of the wood?

A More or less three and a half feet in length.

Q What was the sex of these prisoners?

A All of them were men.

Q Did you see each one of them beaten?

A Yes, each one of them were beaten.

Q How long did this beating take place? How long did it last?

A It started about seven or eight o'clock in the morning up to after lunch time, about one o'clock.

Q What did the men say, if anything, while they were being beaten?

A The prisoners, while being beaten, were pleading and hollering for their mothers and as they shouted the more they beat them.

Q Can you state whether or not the shouts of the prisoners could be heard throughout the school building?

30

MR. SIMON: I will object to that as to not being within the knowledge of this witness. There is no foundation.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any further comment by the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The witness is in the building. He knows the size of the building. He knows the extent of the shouting and he should be able to state whether or not the shout could be heard throughout the school building.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is sustained. You may proceed.

Q Can you state whether or not, taking into consideration, the size of the school building that the shouts of the prisoners could be heard on the second floor?

MR. SIMON: Same objection, sir. I would like to also add to my objection the fact that this witness couldn't possibly know. This witness couldn't possibly know that the shouting could be heard on the second floor. He couldn't know whether any noise could be heard. It would depend on the noise on the second floor, and the activity in and about the building at that particular time that the shouting was going on.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any further comments?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir. I think that the witness definitely should be able to state that as a matter of his opinion and, thereafter, oncross-examination if the defense will show that he does not know that, it could be stricken on motion. I think he could make a short-handed

31

statement, "that in my opinion I could hear it on the second floor."

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the prosecution have any objection to inserting the word "normally" have been heard on the second floor.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No, sir. I have no objection.

COLONEL WORTMAN: With that rewording of the question would the defense continue its objection?

MR. SIMON: Sir, the defense will continue the objection on the ground that it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, whether shouting could be normally heard on the second floor because it would depend on whether conditions were normal at that time. That foundation will have to be laid before such a question could be asked and have any bearing at all.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the prosecution intend to reword the question and insert the word "normally"?

32

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will if you so desire, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: If you will, please. As I understand it, the defense still objects to the question in that form.

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is not sustained and the witness will answer the question. Will the reporter read the last question?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: I will ask the prosecution to restate the question.

Q Taking into consideration the size and construction of the building, are you able to state whether or not this shouting that you heard could normally be heard by persons on the second floor?

A If one stays on the upper floor right about the place of the prisoners, the shouts could be heard.

Q Approximately what time of day was it when two of the prisoners went down on the floor?

A Approximately eight o'clock in the morning.

Q Approximately what time of day were they carried out of the building?

A It was after four o'clock, more or less, in the afternoon.

Q During all the time from the time they went down on the floor until they were carried from the building, did you remain constantly in your cell?

A I was in my cell.

33

Q Were they in a position on the floor in which you could see them at all times?

A I could see them; the position where they were lying on their abdomen on the floor.

Q During all that time state whether or not they moved in any way.

A From the time those two people fell on the floor up to the time they were brought out in the afternoon, I did not see them move. I was attentive in looking at them and it was only about six meters.

Q Could you see whether or not the men breathed during this time?

A Yes, I could see if they were breathing or not because if they were breathing naturally they will move.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the prosecution mind asking the witness whether or not they were actually breathing?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He said, sir, that they were breathing and he could see them.

COLONEL WORTMAN: I would just like to have you ask that question, please, to clarify that point, if you don't mind.

Q Will you state whether or not the two men on the floor were breathing?

A The way I looked at them they were not breathing.

Q I will come back to the two men later. Going to the other prisoners, you stated that they were taken out one by one. What time of day were they taken out of the cell?

A It was about four or five o'clock in the afternoon.

34

Q Who took them from the cell?

A Two Japanese, Sergeant Kawashimo and Vicente Morata.

Q Prior to the time that they were taken from the cell did you see the accused, Motoki, present at or in the cell?

A Yes, I saw him.

Q Was Motoki inside the cell or outside the cell?

A He went inside the cell.

Q State whether or not you heard the conversation between Motoki and Sergeant Major Kawashimo.

MR. SIMON: Will the prosecution make that more definite as to the time?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you have any objection to making it more definite as to time and to eliminating the leading characteristics of your question?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Sir, I know no way other than to put it, can you state whether or not you heard a conversation.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you can ask that, but your original question was "did you hear a conversation between so and so". I believe I am correct in that.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter read the original question back?

(The last question was read back by the reporter.)

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, counsel joins in that request that he eliminate the objectionable portion -- the conversation between Motoki and Sergeant Major Kawashimo -- that be eliminated from the question also.

35

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that your only objection now to the question the way it stands?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will rephrase the question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you withdraw your objection on that basis?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir.

Q At the time you saw Motoki in the cell were there other persons present than the prisoners and Motoki?

A I saw inside the cell Kawashimo, Motoki and two Japanese soldiers and Vicente Morata.

Q At this time did you hear a conversation? State whether or not you heard a conversation between Motoki and any of the other persons present.

A I saw Motoki talk with somebody inside the cell although I cannot hear what he was speaking. The only word which I heard was the last word in Japanese that was "Korosu Do."

Q Is that the only word that you heard or is that the only word that you remember?

A That is the only word I heard and that is the only word I can remember.

Q Did you know or did you learn the meaning of that word?

A I do not know the meaning of that word.

Q Did you later learn from other persons the meaning of that word.

A Yes.

Q What did you learn the meaning to be?

36

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, the best evidence of what this word means would be a word from the official interpreter. I request that the information come from official sources.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I was just going to suggest that as soon as I got the complete story of this word.

COLONEL WORTMAN: If the defense has no objection I think the prosecution should be permitted to go ahead along the line he is going with the understanding that he is going to definitely establish the true meaning of that word.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I suggest we go ahead and ask the interpreter what that word means in Japanese.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you make any such request to the interpreter that you want to make in connection with that word or any other word?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the Japanese interpreter at this time give us the meaning of the word "Korusu Do?"

INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: "Korusu Do" means I will kill.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Let the record show that the witness on the stand repeated the word that he heerd through the official interpreter. The official interpreter states the word or phrase means, "I will kill." Is that correct, or not, Interpreter?

INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: That is correct.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the defense have any objection to that interpretation?

MR. SIMON: No objection.

37

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that satisfactory to the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well,you may proceed on that basis.

38

MR. SIMON: Sir, there is some question here whether Korosu Do means "I will kill" or "kill you". I request interpretation on that.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. Will the witness again state the word or phrase which he said he heard to the official interpreter?

A Korosu Do.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the official interpreter tell the Commission what that means when translated into english?

INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: You may take it as "I will kill" or "I will kill you".

COLONEL WORTMAN: Let the record show that the phrase referred to means "I will kill" or "I will kill you". Is that interpretation satisfactory to the defense?

MR. SIMON: Sir, the defense would request whether or not the word also means "I will kill you" or, in other words, the word could mean he, I, or you, or "I will kill you".

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you ask a direct question to the official interpreter and clarify that?

MR. SIMON: Well, does that word also mean "I will kill you?

INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: There is no subject in the sentence so you can take it "he" or "I", "he will kill", "I will kill".

COLONEL WORTMAN: Now I want the official interpreter to give us the interpretation that may be placed on that Japanese expression.

39

INTERPRETER KITASHIRO: "I will kill", it could be "he will kill"; you can put "you", "I will kill you".

COLONEL WORTMAN: I will ask the interpreter to give a clear and specific translation of that word when translated into the English language. How many different meanings does it have?

INTERPRETER BABA: The meaning of the word is "I will kill" but the person is not definite, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: All right. Again I ask you to give this Commission the interpretation, as many different interpretations as you can give that word when translated into the English language.

INTERPRETER BABA: It may mean "I will kill", "I will kill you", and "you will be killed".

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that three different translations, three different meanings?

INTERPRETER BABA: Yes.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Read them over rgain.

INTERPRETER BABA: "I will kill", "I will kill you" and "you will be killed".

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, is that interpretation satisfactory to the defense?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is it satisfactory to the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed on that basis.

40

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q Did you clearly hear this word or words come from the mouth of Motoki?

A Yes, very clear.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess for ten minutes.

(Short recess.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

INTERPRETER BABA: Sir, I would like to add to the word "Korosu Zo" that in that particular phrase the word "threat" is contained in the case of the word "Korosu Zo". There is a threatening meaning in that.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Threatening meaning?

INTERPRETER BABA: Yes. As I have said before, the person is indefinite and it depends upon who is saying it, and to whom it is addressed, but it is a sort of threat to kill.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is there any objection by the defense to that additional translation placed on the word referred to a while ago? MR. SIMON: Sir, if I understand it correctly this is not an additional interpretation but rather the final interpretation that "Korosu Zo" is a threat of death or a threat to kill but with no subject attached to it and that the previous statements "I will kill" or "you will be killed" no longer stand in this record.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comment by the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I would like for any statement of that type to come from the lips of the interpreter.

41

COLONEL WORTMAN: The understanding of the Commission a moment ago was that the translation of the word in question was as interpreted by the interpreter. He gave three different meanings that the word might have. Is that correct or not?

INTERPRETER BABA: I would like to correct that, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Now, is this an amplification?

INTERPRETER BABA: This will be a correction that the person cannot be definite and therefore I would like to retract my statement saying "I" or "you", any subject.

COLONEL WORTMAN: All right.

INTERPRETER BABA: The Japanese sentence can't be complete without a subject. In this case it would be difficult for me to say whether "I" or "you" because --although I can't definitely state what it is in this case, because it is just a word that was heard.

COLONEL WORTMAN: We have spent considerable time on this interpretation. With a view to avoiding any mistake in interpretation that may be placed on the word in question I am going to ask you again to give the meanings that that word may convey.

INTERPRETER BABA: The word "Korosu Zo" means to kill or to put to death and "Korosu Zo" is a form for constituting a threat. The subject itself is indefinite, that is it could be first person or third person.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Now, is that identical with the interpretation you placed on that word a few moments

42

ago except for the fact that you say that it has a sort of threat characteristic?

INTERPRETER BABA: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that true?

INTERPRETER BABA: It has a threat characteristic. Yes Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: With that further amplification, is the defense satisfied with the interpretation, translation of the word in question?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, I am satisfied.

COLONEL WORTMAN: You may proceed, on that basis.

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q After you heard Motoki say this word, or words, what did you see Motoki do?

A He left through the door of the cell and went upstairs.

Q After Motoki went upstairs, what did you see happen?

A I saw that the prisoners were brought outside one by one.

Q In what direction did they go outside?

A Towards the plaza of the high school ground.

Q What door did you see the prisoners taken out from a door of the school building?

A The door that faces the east.

Q Is that door the front door, the door on the left side or to the rear?

43

MR. SIMON: I will object to it being too vague and ambiguous a question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is sustained.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May I be heard on this?

COLONEL WORTMAN: You may.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I want to know where the door was, was it the front door, the back door, in the left or in the right part of the school building? I want to get him out of the building.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That is what the Commission would like to have you establish but I think you can do that by direct questioning and by the use of short sentences and get a much clearer idea of what you are trying to establish.

Q Did you see, I ask you again, did you see the prisoner taken out of a door of the school building?

A Yes.

Q Did they go out the front door of the school building?

A The door behind the school building.

Q You stated that they were taken one by one. Will you state whether you mean in a row or one taken from a cell each time?

A When I said they were taken one by one I mean they are taken one after another.

Q Was there an interval of time between the taking of the prisoners? Was there any time elapsed from the time the first prisoner was taken until the time the second prisoner was taken?

A There was an interval of about five or ten minutes.

44

Q Will you state whether or not the prisoners were tied at the time they were taken out of the school building?

A They were tied.

Q How were they tied?

A All of them, their hands were tied behind their back and some of them aside from the fact that their hands were tied behind their back it was connected with another string to their neck.

Q Who took the six prisoners out?

A Kawashimo, the two Japanese and Vicente Morata.

Q Did you know the two Japanese?

A I do not know them.

Q Can you state whether or not they were soldiers?

A They were soldiers.

Q How long after Motoki went upstairs was it before the first prisoner of the six was taken out?

A Motoki went upstairs. It was about ten minutes more or less after when the prisoners were started to be taken out.

Q Did you see each of the six prisoners who were bound taken from the building?

A I saw them.

Q Did Sergeant Kawashimo return to the building after the last of those six prisoners were taken out?

A Yes, Kawashimo returned to the building.

Q What, if anything, did you see him do?

A Through my cell I saw him wiping his sword. He was wiping blood from his sword and I also saw his clothes Splattered with blood.

Q How long was that after the last of the six prisoners were taken out of the door?

45

A More or less one hour.

Q Is that one hour after the last of the six prisoners was taken from the building?

A Yes, more or less one hour after the last prisoner was taken from the building.

Q Where were the two prisoners who were on the floor during the time from the taking of the first of the six prisoners until the taking of the last of the six prisoners?

A They were slammed to the floor with their face downwards.

Q After the last of the six prisonors was marched out, did the Japanese keep a guard at the door of the cell where the two prisoners were on the floor?

A. One of the Japanese soldiers who was with them went back to the cell where they had been.

Q What happened at that time?

A Vicente Morata also returned to the cell after the first Japanese soldier has returned, tied a rope on the neck of the prisoner connecting the neck and the hands which is tied behind his back, then held the rope and the other Japanese took hold of the feet and in that position they carried the prisoners, one by one, to the outside building.

Q Were the two prisoners carried by your cell in this manner?

A The two prisoners were carried in this position but not in front of my cell but through the door of the cell where they have been, a distance only of about six meters more or less. Q Were these two men both dead at the time they were carried out?

46

A They were dead.

Q Are you sure of that?

A I am sure they were dead.

Q Did Motoki, in the stockade here on the day before yesterday, state that he know you?

A Yes.

Q Do you know the Japanese officer in charge of Iloilo high School Garrison at the time of this incident?

A Yes.

Q State whether or not Motoki was in charge of that garrison.

A It was Motoki.

Q How do you know that Motoki was in charge of that garrison?

A He is the only one having the highest rank in that garrison at Iloilo.

Q Do you know the name of the commanding officer of Motoki at that time?

MR. SIMON: This man stated that Motoki is the highest ranking officer at Iloilo.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He said Motoki was the highest ranking officer at the Iloilo High School garrison, sir.

MR. SIMON: I will object to his testimony about the highest commander unless he wants to change his previous testimony about who was the highest ranking officer.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What are the grounds for your objection?

MR. SIMON: The statements are mutually contradictory.

47

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: There is no contradiction, Sir. The witness says Motoki was the highest ranking officer in the high school garrison. I want to show who was the next commander of that garrison and where his headquarters were if the witness knows.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the question, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the defense is not sustained. The witness will answer the question to the best of his knowledge and belief.

A In the garrison at that time Motoki was the highest officer.

48

Q But in the City of Iloilo, do you know whether or not there was a higher Japanese officer at that time?

A Yes.

Q Do you know the name of that officer?

A Yes.

Q Do you know where his headquarters was located?

A Yes.

Q Where was it?

Q In the Iloilo City Hall.

Q At the time that Sergeant Kawashimo and the two soldiers and the Filipino took the six men from the building, with what was Sergeant Kawashimo armed?

A A saber.

Q State whether or not the two soldiers were armed?

A The two soldiers had rifles with them with fixed bayonets.

Q During the time that you were imprisoned in the Iloilo High Sohool, did you have any occasion to go into the office of Motoki?

A No.

Q At any time during this period of June 1944 or prior or after that time, did you have any occasion to go into the office of Motoki?

A Yes.

Q Do you know whether or not Sergeant Kawashimo kept office in the same room?

A Yes.

Q How do you know this?

A Because their office desks were adjacent insido one room.

49

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No further questions.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any cross examination?

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. SIMON:

Q With what unit of the guerrillas did you serve in 1944?

A G-2.

Q What regiment is that?

A 63d Infantry Regiment.

Q Who was your commanding officer?

A Major Salcedo.

Q When was the period of time that you served with the 63d Infantry Regiment?

A I was under the 63d Infantry Regiment from 11 January 1944 up to the time the Americans landed.

Q When was it that you served under Lieutenant Sustento as Battalion S-2?

COLONEL WORTMAN: (through interpreter) You translate what question to him and he will answer the question in the Visayan language to the interpreter.

A From the time I was appointed as puppet mayor of Dumangas, 17 August 1943.

Q Were you also the chief of police of Dumangas in 1943?

A Yes.

Q When was it that you were chief of police?

A 11 January 1943.

Q When did you leave your job as chief of police?

A When I was appointed as puppet mayor by Dr. Caram, 17 August 1943.

50

Q Had you been arrested by the Japanese prior to June of 1944?

A Yes, I was caught by the Japanese.

Q When was that?

A 27 April 1943.

Q How long were you held by them at that time?

A We were imprisoned for one night and one day at Fort San Pedro, Iloilo.

Q With what infantry unit was Lieutenant Sustento?

A In the 63d Infantry, Battalion S-2, under Major Golez.

Q Which battalion?

A Under the battalion commanded by Major Golez.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess until 1300 hours this afternoon.

(The Commission recessed at 1130 hours to reconvene at 1300 hours.)

51

AFTERNOON SESSION

The Commission reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 1300 hours.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May the record show that the members of the Commission, the accused, and his personal interpreter and duly appointed defense counsel and the prosecutor are present in the courtroom.

Will the interpreter please remind this witness that he is still under oath?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

BY MR. SIMON:

Q Where were you when you were arrested on June 24, 1944?

A I was on my way home, about thirty meters from my house --more or less thirty meters from my house when I was arrested by the two Japanese.

Q Was that at the corner of Blanco and Iznart Streets in Iloilo City?

A Yes.

Q Were you by yourself at the time you were arrested?

A I was alone whon I was apprehended on the street.

Q Were you arrested any time after June 1944?

A Yes. I was apprehended again.

Q When was that?

A 16th of October 1944.

Q Do you know Margarita Rodriguez?

A Yes, I know her.

Q What is her relationship to you?

52

A Younger sister of my wife.

Q Do you know Pablo Poblador?

A Yes, I know Pablo Poblador.

Q What is his relationship to you?

A He is not related to me.

Q Was Margarita Rodriguez with you when you were arrested on June 24, 1944?

MR. SIMON: The defense requests that this witness be instructed to answer that question yes or no. I just asked the witness whether or not Margarita Rodriguez was with him.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the Commission, may I be heard on that just a moment. The witness is able to explain and then the answer he has given should be given by the interpreter because that answer will explain the situation.

MR. SIMON: Sir, I don't think there is anything to explain. It is just a simple question, "Was Margarita Rodriguez with you when you were arrested?" It just calls for a yes or no answer.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness will answer the questions to the best of his knowledge and belief, and he will be afforded ample opportunity to amplify his answers if he feels it is necessary.

Margarita Rodriguez was not with me when I was arrested. I only saw her in a truck when I was loaded on a truck.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission does want the witness to answer the question asked him and does not want him to ramble on through extraneous details in

53

connection with his answers. Explain that to the witness, please, Interpreter.

THE WITNESS: I am telling the truth only.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: In this case the record will bear me out that the witness was brought to the truck and the truck was thirty meters away. Margarita Rodriguez was not with him, but Margarita was in the truck, and that is all right for him to explain that.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission has no objection to that. I don't believe the defense has. I hear no objection on that.

Q Do you know Eriberto Pavillar?

A Yes.

Q Did you see him on June 24, 1944?

A Yes, I saw him.

Q Where did you see him?

A In the truck.

Q Who else was on that trunk?

A Margarita Rodriguez, Eriberto Pavillar, Jesus Dugina, and Justiano Parcon. That is all.

Q There were three men and one woman and yourself on that truck?

A Four men and Margarita.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The communication will be through the interpreter. Translate that question to the witness and see that it goes through that way.

A Four men and one woman.

Q That is, four men including yourself?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The defense counsel will

54

direct his remarks to the interpreter, please. And I don't believe the witness will then be tempted to answer in English.

MR. SIMON: All right, sir. Will the reporter read back the last question?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

A That is wrong. Four men, one woman, and I was the fifth of the men.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The interpreter said the fifth, and the way the witness told him, he was the sixth not the fifth.

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: He said he was the fifth of the men, and then he changed now.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, but communicate with the witness in Visayan.

A There were four men in the truck, the fifth including myself; and there was another woman inside the truck.

Q Was Pablo Poblador on that truck when you were first arrested?

A He was not in the truck, sir.

Q Did this truck take you all to the jail at Iloilo high school?

A Yes.

Q Were you all put in the same cell in the jail?

A I was placed in a cell all by myself.

Q Did you see where the others were placed?

A Behind my cell, separated by a concrete wall.

Q How many cells are there in the jail house?

A There were in all three cells, including the one where I was confined, in a smaller cell.

55

Q Could you see Margarita and her companions from your cell?

A I was not able to see them because we were separated with a concrete wall.

Q Did you notice whether the entrance to the cell in which Margarita was kept was opposite the cell where those eight men were kept?

A No, it was not opposite.

Q Was Margarita put in the same cell that the four men were in?

A They were placed in one room, but Margarita's place was separated with a wire fence.

Q Did you notice those eight men being held when you were first put in that prison?

A Not yet.

Q What time of day was that when you were put in the cell?

A Six o'clock in the afternoon.

Q Was that the afternoon of the 24th of June 1944?

A Yes.

Q Was there light down in the cells?

A In my cell there was no light.

Q Was there any light at all in any of the space down stairs?

A The light was placed on the hallway facing the cell where the beatings took place and where Motoki and Kawashimo and the two Japanese soldiers were.

Q Do I understand you to say it was like a spotlight that was thrown on the cell where these eight men were kept?

56

A It was an electric light bulb.

Q How far from your cell was this electric light placed?

A Eight meters, more or less.

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, defense requests that the witness be permitted to testify in English, and then, if he becomes confused on any question about definitiin or understanding, that we will then let the interpreter intervene.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What is the objection to your communicating with him in his native language, which he understands satisfactorily, in view of the fact that it has been definitely shown that he does not speak and understand the English language well.

MR. SIMON: Three times already he has answered the question in English before the interpreter ever asked him anything.

COLONEL WORTMAN: He will not do that while he is testifying here until the Commission changes its instructions to him. If you can think of any justifiable reason for having him communicate in English, I would be glad to hear it, but in the absence of that I think we should go ahead in the normal way with the interpreter communicating with him in the Visayan language and translating into English for the benefit of the prosecution, defense and Commission.

Is that arrangement satisfactory with the defense?

MR. SIMON: If the Commission so pleases, it is.

Q How far was the light from the cell where the eight men were?

A More or less four meters.

57

Q To what is the light attached?

A It was attached on the floor of the second floor of the building.

Q Was there a reflector around the bulb?

A Yes, there was a reflector.

Q Were you able to tell what size bulb was in that light?

A I cannot tell you exactly the capacity of the bulb because it has a covering.

Q Was there one bulb or more than one inside of that light?

A Only one bulb.

Q Was that the only light that was in the Iloilo high school?

A In the first place it is the only light there.

58

At what time were these eight men brought to the cell?

A Approximately seven-thirty.

Q Were they brought past your cell on the way to their cell at seven-thirty that night?

A They passed by my cell, but I saw them when they entered their own cell.

Q Were they being investigated at seven-thirty that night?

A They were not investigated. The investigation, if you call it investigation, that was given to them were the beatings.

Q Did you see them beat as soon as they were brought into that cell?

A Yes, I saw.

Q Were their hands tied at that time?

A Yes.

Q How were their hands tied?

A Their hands were tied behind their backs with some of them also tied, connected to their necks.

Q Did you see who brought them to their cell, which of the Japanese garrison conducted them to their cell?

A Four Japanese soldiers with Vicente Morata.

Q Was Sergeant Kawashimo there at that time?

A On the arrival Kawashimo was not with them.

Q Was Lieutenant Motoki with them on their arrival?

A Motoki was not there when the Japanese and the prisoners arrived.

59

Q At what time did they put out this light in this place where you were kept?

A The light was put out approximately twelve that night.

Q And is the light put out in the morning?

A They only put on the light at night time.

Q Were these men beaten that night?

A Upon their arrival they were immediately beaten and then followed again in the morning when Kawashimo and Morata joined them.

Q Did Lieutenant Motoki visit them in their cell the night of June 24, 1944?

A That evening Motoki did not appear in the cell of the eight men. Sergeant Kawashimo appeared there after fifteen minutes had elapsed after the arrival of these people in their cell.

Q Did you hear Sergeant Kawashimo asking these men questions that night in the cell?

A I only heard the sounds of the beating and the shoutings, and the shouts of the people being beaten.

Q Did you hear them answer any questions put to them by these Japanese?

A I did not hear anything. They were not investigated.

Q Was Juan Sumagaysay asking any questions?

A The beatings were the only investigation.

Q Was Juan Sumagaysay beating those prisoners?

A I did not see Juan Sumagaysay. I only saw Vicente Morata.

60

Q Is Vicente Morata a Filipino undercover?

A He was a Japanese spy.

Q Of Filipino nationality?

A Yes.

Q And is Juan Sumagaysay also a Filipino?

A Yes, Filipino.

Q And were those two employed by the Intelligence Section of the Japanese army at Iloilo?

A Yes, they were Japanese spies.

Q Didn't they work for Captain Kengo Watanabe, the S-2 of the Kempei Tai?

A Juan Sumagaysay was under Kawashimo and Kawashimo was under Motoki.

Q How did you know that?

A They themselves told me so.

Q Did Juan Sumagaysay tell you that?

A Yes, I was told by Juan Sumagaysay.

Q Did you know that Sergeant Kawashimo was the intelligence and operations sergeant for the battalion?

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: May I have that question read, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

A. That I do not know.

Q As puppet mayor of Dumangas, did you have to report to any Japanese officers?

A The question is not specific. I want precisely to know what kind of report you are referring to.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The defense will make it clear

61

to the witness as to the exact kind of report he is talking about.

Q Any report of any kind.

A I do not submit any report but they inquire of me about whether or not there are army people in the locality, That I answer.

Q And who is the "they" you have reference to?

A Either the Japanese that reside in my town or those coming from Iloilo City whom I inquired about whether or not there are army men in the locality. Also whenever I happen to be at Iloilo City when anyone of them ask me about the same questions I also answer.

Q Did you ever see Lieutenant Colonel Tozuka in regard to these reports?

A I met Colonel Tozuka together with Dr. Caram.

Q Who is Colonel Tozuka?

A According to what I understand, and according to what Tozuka also told Dr. Caram, I understand he is the one in charge of the mobile force in Iloilo.

Q And were his offices at the Iloilo High School in June 1944?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the question back, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I don't get that, please. Referring to Colonel Tozuka?

MR. SIMON: To Colonel Tozuka, right. I will withdraw that last question.

62

Q Didn't Colonel Tozuka have his office at the Iloilo High School in June 1944?

A The offices of Lieutenent Colonel Tozuka were no longer at the Iloilo High School.

Q Weren't they moved from the Iloilo High School to the City Hall in September 1944?

A I cannot remember the date, but I know that they were already at the City Hall in the year 1944.

Q Did you visit Colonel Tozuka's office at the City Hall?

A I never visited in there.

Q Did you know that Lieutenant Motoki was his adjutant?

A I do not know what relation Motoki had to Tozuka. All I know was that Motoki was in charge of the garrison at the Iloilo High School.

Q And did you know that Captain Kengo Watanabe wss the intelligence and operations officer for Colonel Tozuka?

A I do not know whether or not he belongs to the intelligence. All I know is that he was under Lieutenant Colonel Tozuka.

Q Did the Japanese investigate Margarita and her companion that night when they were arrested?

A I do not know what happened because upon my arrival I was placed inside a back room.

Q Did you hear any noises coming from their cell?

A That was the place of Motoki and his companion separated by a complete wall and then under the stairway where I was, and next to that is the cell of the eight people who were beaten.

63

Q Did you ever go on patrol, or punitive expeditions with the Japanese?

A Yes, I went with them.

64

Q And when was the first time you accompanied the Japanese on a punitive expedition?

A It was in September 1944.

Q Wasn't in September 1943 that you accompanied the Japs on these expeditions?

A I can explain it in English to the Commission.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What is it?

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: He would like to explain it in English to the Commission.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission would like to be consistent and have this testimony through the interpreter to insure thet it is getting the testimony that the witness is giving in the Visayan language. Will you repeat his answers to the Commission?

A Both in 1943 and in 1944 I went on expeditions with the Japanese, within our own town, Dumangas, also at Pototan, and Zaraga and neighboring towns.

Q Didn't you go --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Just a minute. Has the witness finished his answer?

A That is all that I know.

Q Didn't you accompany Captain Kengo Watanabe in September 1943 in the expedition to the Passi district?

A Yes, I came along on the expedition of Captain Kengo Watanabe.

Q Will you tell the Commission who Captain Kengo Watanabe is?

A According to what I know he is under the command of Colonel Tozuka.

65

Q And isn't he the intelligence and operations officer for that battalion?

A All I know is that he goes out to the field, that is including Iloilo and Capiz provinces, but whether or not he was an intelligence man, a member of the intelligence, I do not know.

Q Do you know Sergeant Matsusaki?

A Yes, I know him.

Q Wasn't he the interpreter for Captain Watanabe?

A Yes, I know he was the interpreter of Captain Watanabe.

Q And wasn't Sergeant Matsusaki in the intelligence and operations section of the battalion?

A All I know is that Sergeant Matsusaki is the interpreter of Captain Watanabe. With regard to their connections with inteltigence I do not know.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess for ten minutes.

(Short recess.)

66

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

Q Was Lieutenant Motoki with Captain Watanabe on these expeditions to Passi in 1943?

A No.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the Commission, at this time I want to go along with counsel but I don't see a lot of relevancy as to the expeditions that were held in 1943 by some other Japanese officer.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Unless the defense can show the relevancy of its line of questioning, it is the desire of the Commission that it be discontinued in connection with mattters so far removed from the charge and specifications before the Commission at this time.

Q Did Captain Watanabe participate in the investigation of these eight men that were being held in the high school?

A No, he was not there.

Q Did you say you went on patrols with the Japanese in 1944?

A I went with Japanese on their patrols in the year 1944 in our town.

Q In what months?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If the Commission please, we see no relevancy of the questioning unless it is the intention to show the integrity of the witness, or unless it shows him on patrol.

MR. SIMON: The answer might disclose he was on a patrol when he was supposed to be in jail in 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission would like to know whether or not the defense is attempting to impeach the

67

testimony of this witness, or whether that is the purpose of the line of questioning at this time?

MR. SIMON: I have two intentions: One is to fix him in a set place at a certain time. The second is to impeach his credibility.

COLONEL WORTMAN: If it is the intention to impeach his credibility, you may continue in connection with your line of questioning.

A April 1944, only as far as the town of Saraga.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He didn't say "only as far as the town of Zaraga." He said "in the town of Zaraga."

A Up to the town of Zaraga.

Q What was your duty with the patrol?

A They just took me -- bring me around the town to investigate whether or not it was true whether there were many army men in my town, Dumangas.

Q. Did they capture any guerrilla suspects on that patrol?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: We see no connection with the guerrillas, if they did. The man says "they were in a patrol in my town." And what difference does it make whether they captured them or not?

MR. SIMON: If the Commission please, there are records now before the military commissions in Manila that patrols put out by the Tozuka Battalion from July of 1943 up through the middle of 1944 went out through the island of Panay and killed and murdered, and were under orders to kill every guerrilla suspect and every man woman and child in certain prohibited areas where these patrols have been put out.

68

We have tried every member of that battalion for those killings of which this man was a member of a patrol, and he himself may have killed some of the men.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: We are not trying Japanese for the patrols they had. We are not trying this man.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Just a moment. Let me have that set of charges with the notations on it that I asked you to put on, please.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will give you the original, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Make the changes on the copy which I have just given you. I want it in connection with the point that has just come up.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May I state to the Commission that I just got orders to try this case Saturday, and all stenographers were off Saturday afternoon and Sunday.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That is perfectly all right. Will the reporter read the last two questions and answers back, please?

(The last two questions and answers were read by the reporter.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do the last two questions refer to expeditions conducted in June 1944?

MR. SIMON: No, sir. The witness has testified that these expeditions occurred in April, 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Did I have an objection from the prosecution to the line of questioning?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir. The questioning, I think, was irrelevant for the purpose of this case, to go

69

into it other than the man was with them.

MR. SIMON: We don't want to try this man. The only thing we want to do is show what relevant testimony would affect his credibility.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter go back and read the original objection in detail?

(Original objection was read by the reporter in detail.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the prosecution is overruled. The witness will answer the question to the best of his knowledge and belief.

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read the last question?

(Question was read by the reporter.)

A At the time when I was with them we caught some guerrillas but they were not killed. They were released.

Q Did that same thing happen in Passi in 1943; all the guerrillas caught were released?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense fix the time of the incidents or expeditions which he is questioning the witness about now?

MR. SIMON: That is in December 1943.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY. He is going back a year before this. He is asking, did the Japanese battalion capture guerrillas. The man said that he went along with the patrol in this town of Zaraga, the town in which he lived.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What year and month was that?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: That is in 1944. The question he is getting into now is 1943. Did he capture any guerrillas? I can't see any connection as to whether or not Lieutenant

70

Motoki committed the crimes with which he is charged and whether or not a patrol one year previous captured guerrillas.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the defense mind re-stating its question and fixing the year and month of the expedition that it is referring to. If that is done, would you withdraw your objection?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I object to his continuing and trying the case whether the guerrillas were killed so far as this man is concerned.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you withdraw your objection for the time being until you hear the reworded question?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will withdraw the objection.

Q On these expeditions in September 1943 at Passi, did they release all the guerrilla suspects that they captured?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I object to that question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What is the basis of your objection?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The objection is that it is irrelevant to whether Motoki committed the crime for which we are trying him and cannot be affected in any way by whether or not the guerrillas who were captured by the expedition in 1943 were released.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The objection of the prosecution is sustained.

MR. SIMON: Sir, I might state this for reconsideration. I realize the Commission has already made its ruling. I have tried four of these Panay cases and this is the first case where we have heard of guerrilla suspects being captured and turned loose. Therefore, to test this witness'

71

credibility I feel we should go into the expeditions in which he has participated and they should be thoroughly threshed out by referring to records of previous cases. We wonder what the answers to these questions will be.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That is very much removed from the Charge and Specifications before this Commission. With a view to expediting the trial, it is the desire of the Commission that all irrelevant matters that the defense can omit from these proceedings be omitted.

MR. SIMON: Will the Commission take judicial notice then that in the records of the trial of the United States of America versus Tozuka, the record of the United States of America --

COLONEL WORTMAN: To expedite matters, the Commission will take judicial notice of any testimony that you care to cite in connection with any proceedings of War Crimes Commissions, if you will produce the records and speak from the record.

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

Q Did you over see this picture before?

(Mr. Simon hands picture to witness.)

Q Did Captain Yard show that picture to you when he took you to the internment camp?

COLONEL WORTMAN: What date?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: We have no objection to the defense questioning about the picture provided he states what the picture is.

72

MR. SIMON: I would rather the witness identify it in his own words.

COLONEL WORTMAN: In the normal way, I wish you would ask appropriate questions to properly identify that picture for the record.

Q Will you tell the Commission who this is a picture of?

A Motoki.

Q Did Captain Yard show you a picture of Motoki before you saw him in person at the internment camp?

A He didn't show it to me.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He said it wasn't shown to him before he saw Motoki.

Q Did you see this picture at any time prior to the time I showed it to you?

A I never saw the picture, only this time.

Q Did Captain Yard show you any pictures of Lieutenant Motoki before you visited him at Manila?

A No.

73

Q Did you report to Lieutenant Sustento the killing of these eight men on June 24, 1944?

A Yes, I have reported.

Q And when did you make that report?

A When I came out.

Q And when was that?

A The first of July, 1944.

Q You were confined at Iloilo High School from the 24th of June until the 1st of July 1944?

A No, I was detained four nights only.

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read back the previous question and answer?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the previous question and answer back, please?

(The last question and answer were read by the reporter.)

Q Now, were you released from the jail on the 1st of July or on the 28th of June, 1944?

A I was released 28 June 1944 about two or three o'clock in the afternoon.

Q And was Margarita Rodriquez released at the same time?

A She was released after three days in prison. She was one day ahead, then my release. She was released one day ahead and I was released.

Q And were her companions released at the same time she was released?

A The four boys were not released.

Q Was Pablo Poblador brought to the cell at any time while you were being held there?

A I did not see Pablo Poblador.

74

Q Were any questions asked of you while you were being held by the Japanese?

A They did not ask me any questions.

Q Did they beat you or mistreat you in any way?

A I was beaten by Major -- by Sergeant Kawashimo together with two other Japanese soldiers. They were accusing me for being a member of the G 2.

Q And what day was that when Sergeant Kawashimo beat you?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I see no relevance in the question.

MR. SIMON: Sir, the man is testifying that he had observed that these eight men were being held and watched everything they did. He seems to have been pretty busy himself at or about this same time.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will withdraw the objection provided he can prove that point.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read the question, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

A At about seven o'clock in the evening on the night of June 24th.

Q How long did he beat you?

A They hang me and beat me with pieces of wood.

Q How long did that continue?

A More or less thirty minutes. They hang me on my hands tied behind my back, my toes were the only ones touching the floor.

75

Q They beat you about the head?

A One time I was struck behind the neck --

Q With what type of instrument?

A -- and on my hands and my thighs.

Q What did they hit you on the head with?

A They hit me on the head with a rounded piece of wood.

Q Did they knock you unconscious?

A The first time I was hit on the head I was unconscious.

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read back this last question, please?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Just a moment. Was that "unconscious" or "conscious"?

A Unconscious.

Q And for how long were you unconscious?

A More or less ten minutes.

Q Has your head bothered you since that time?

A After that time when I was struck behind my head I feel the pain on that portion of my head for about one month.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read that last statement back, please?

(The last statement was read by the reporter.)

Q Were you hung facing the wall of your cell?

A They did not hang me inside my cell. They hang me inside the cell where the eight people were beaten.

Q Did they take you from your cell into the cell that these eight men were?

A Yes, they took me there.

Q And that was about fifteen minutes -- that was when they were beating you between seven and seven thirty that night?

76

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I am not sure whether the witness is saying that the eight men were there or that the eight men were not there at that time.

MR. SIMON: My recollection of this witness' testimony now is that he was taken from his cell to the cell where the eight men were and there were eight men there.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I am not sure he said whether the eight men were there.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense please clarify that point?

Q When were you taken to that cell and being hung, and what time was that?

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: May I have the question again, please?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you read the question back, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

A More or less seven thirty.

Q And were the eight men in that cell at that time?

A The eight men were not yet there.

Q And how long were you kept in that cell?

A More or less thirty minutes.

Q And what time was it -- where were you taken from there?

A I was again taken inside my former room, the dark room.

Q And who placed you in that dark room, was it Sergeant Kawashimo?

A Yes, Sergeant Kawashimo and another Japanese soldier.

Q And was it at that time that the eight Japanese were brought into their cell?

77

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Counsel, do you mean to say eight Japanese?

MR. SIMON: Strike that, -- eight Filipinos.

A The eight Filipinos were not yet there.

Q What time was it when they were brought to the cell?

A I stayed already two evenings in my cell as a prisoner and the following morning about seven o'clock the eight Filipinos arrived.

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read that last answer, please?

(The last answer was read by the reporter.)

Q It was on June 27th that the eight Filipinos were put in that cell?

A 26th of June.

Q And what time in the morning was that when they were brought to that cell?

A More or less seven o'clock in the morning.

Q You previously stated that at seven-thirty at night these prisoners were brought to the cell. Now which is it?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I object to that question. I made special note that counsel questioned him for a long time after he said seven o'clock that it was seven o'clock he was talking about in the evening. I made a note here of the particular point.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the reporter read the last question back, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

MR. SIMON: May I add, Sir, that my recollection of this testimony, as I have it in my notes is that this witness

78

testified he was put into the cell about 1800 24th of June and about seven-thirty that night those men were brought in there and were beaten and that Kawashimo and Motoki were with them --

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: At the same time witness said seven-thirty and they continued to examine him at seven-thirty in the night whereas he was definitely brought in at seven-thirty in the morning. I made special note to straighten that out on redirect. I suggest that he ask the witness the question what date was it and take it up from there.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission desires that the defense ask appropriate questions to definitely establish the time of arrival of the eight prisoners.

Q Will you tell this Commission at what time of day and date the eight men were brought to the cell in Iloilo High School?

A About seven A.M. -- I mean in the morning, 26 June, more or less.

Q And how long were these men kept in that jail?

A These men were kept in the cell beginning 26 June from seven A.M. to between three and four in the afternoon. At five o'clock they were released one after another.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May I inquire whether the interpreter said they were released?

A They were not released but were sent out.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What were the witness' words "sent out" or "taken out"?

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: Taken out one by one.

79

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the interpreter be careful about the use of those words to make it exactly the words the witness gives you, please? That is in accordance with my notes that were made at the time.

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: They were taken out. That is the only correction, Sir.

Q On the morning of the 26th, were any of these eight men taken out of the cell into another portion of the building?

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: May I have the question again, please?

(The question was read by the reporter.)

A No.

Q Was all the torturing and beating done in that cell where they were first held?

A Yes.

Q And how big a room is the room in which they were held?

A The size of the room was two meters by eight meters, approximately, divided by a wire fence in the middle.

Q And were the prisoners all kept in one section of the room?

A They were placed there in one room.

Q And when they were taken for questioning or beating were they taken into the other portion or partitioned-off section of that cell?

A The very same place where they were confined.

Q And were all eight kept in half of that room, the partitioned-off half?

A Yes.

80

Q And who was in the other portion of the cell?

A It was empty.

Q And how many Japanese soldiers were in that cell beating and torturing those men that morning?

A Two Japanese soldiers, Kawashimo and Vicente Morata -- there were four in all.

81

Q Were there pillars and posts between your cell and the place where these men were confined?

A There were pillars between my room and the room where the eight men were confined, but they were far apart in such a way that I could see clearly what is happening in their room.

Q Was all the beating and investigation conducted on the side of the cell closest to you?

A Yes, because the distance of that place to my room was more or less six meters.

Q What time was it when you noticed those two men lying on the floor of the cell?

A More or less seven o'clock in the morning.

Q When they were brought into the cell at seven o'clock in the morning were these two men put on the floor?

A They were not placed there on the floor. They were standing with their hands tied.

Q Did you observe those two men being beaten?

A Yes, I saw.

Q Did they beat two or more prisoners at the same time?

A They had two sticks for beating simultaneously. They beat two at a time.

Q These two men that you later saw on the floor, were they beaten simultaneously that morning?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense use some word other than "simultaneously" with the thought that the witness might not know exactly what that means?

82

MR. SIMON: Sir, the interpreter suggested that to me in his answer when he said they were beaten simultaneously and I am giving it right back to him in the same way I got it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the interpreter verify whether or not the witness understands the word "simultaneously". I am reasonably sure he does, but I want to be sure.

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: You mean the English word "simultaneously".

THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What does it mean?

THE WITNESS: These two persons were beaten by each Japanese soldier at the same time.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. You may proceed.

Q Where were the other six men kept while these first two men were being beaten?

A The six people were right there in the room watching the beating. They were guarded by the Japanese with a rifle. They cannot run away because they were tied.

Q Will you tell the Commission the best you remember about the details of the beating of these two men?

A When the two men were being beaten the first blow, one of the first blows, struck one of the men right on the back of his ear, or right in the ears. I noted that the ear was injured badly, the ear was crushed, and his head was cracked. He groaned and his last words were "My God."

83

Q Did he fall to the ground?

A Yes, he fell down.

Q Did you see if he was breathing at that time?

A At that time he was still moving and breathing.

Q What happened to this other man?

A Kawashimo applied to him a judo hold and cast him on the floor where he landed on his back. Then Kawashimo jumped on his abdomen and then on his mouth and I noticed that his mouth was badly battered. While the man was lying on his back on the floor groaning and moving, one of the Japanese soldiers took hold of his rifle and struck him with the rifle butt and beat him with the butt of the rifle on the lower abdomen.

Q What happened after that?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the defense mind fixing the exact place that this man was struck with the butt of the rifle?

Q Would you tell the Commission where this Filipino was struck with the butt of the rifle?

COLONEL WORTMAN: All right, let us have that explanation.

A A little above his private parts.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Fix the distance, please, will you defense counsel?

Q How far above his private parts was he struck? Will you indicate that?

MR. SIMON: Let the record indicate that the witness gestured to where the Filipino was hit with the rifle butt.

84

COLONEL WORTMAN: How far above his private parts? That is the question the Commission would like to have the defense counsel establish. Was it one foot, six inches or one inch?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Would it be satisfactory if the record indicated he indicated a point just below the center of the fly on his trousers?

COLONEL WORTMAN: No. That will not be satisfactory. I want the distance above his private parts that he was hit with the butt of the gun closely established. Will you asked an appropriate question and fix that, please?

A I cannot fix definitely how many inches it was because he had pants on at that time, but it is somewhere here (indicating).

85

COLONEL WORTMAN: I ask the defense counsel again to fix approximately the distance the man was struck with the butt of the rifle above his private parts.

MR. SIMON: The defense would like to enter a stipulation on the basis of the witness' gesture. The defense will stipulate subject to approval of the Commission and prosecution that the Filipino was struck with the butt of the rifle approximately six inches above his private parts.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will that stipulation meet with the approval of the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Four to six inches, sir, will be satisfactory.

A Midway between his navel and private parts.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that what the witness said?

INTERPRETER VILLALUZ: Yes.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That stipulation is approved by the Commission.

Q Had any of these other six men been beaten prior to this time?

A Previous to the beating of the two Filipinos, the six were not yet beaten.

Q What time did they start beating those other six Filipinos?

A It was more or less from nine to twelve.

Q Was the Filipino who was hit with the butt of the rifle moaning and groaning on the floor of his cell?

A The moaning and groaning of the man that was hit with the butt of the rifle lasted for more or less one hour.

86

Q Did you see the bodies of any of these men since June 24 1944?

A I did not see them June 24. I only saw them June 26 when they were brought in as prisoners in the cell.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess until 0830 tomorrow morning.

(The Commission adjourned at 1500 hours, 29 July 1946, to reconvene at 0830 hours, 30 July 1946.)

87

PROCEEDINGS

The Commission reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 0835 hours, 30 July 1946, in Court No. 2, High Commissioner's Residence, Manila, P. I.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May the record show that the members of the Commission, the accused and his personal interpreter, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor, are all present in the court room.

The status of the case is that the witness, Jose B. Dimzon, was being cross-examined by the defense counsel. Will the interpreter remind this witness that he is still under oath?

(Interpreter Zosa converses with the witness.)

JOSE B. DIMZON,

a witness for the prosecution, having been previously duly sworn, testified as follows through Interpreters Zosa and Catanjal):

RECROSS EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

#twomen-1

BY MR. SIMON:

Q Did you examine the bodies of the six men that were taken from the cell one at a time after June 24, 1944?

A I didn't examine each body but I saw the bodies there.

Q And where did you see those bodies?

A At the room where they were beaten.

Q After Sergeant Kawashimo took them from the room, did you see any of those six men since that time?

A No more.

88

Q Did you know where any of these six men lived?

A None.

Q Did you see where Sergeant Kawashimo took these men?

A I saw where they were taken.

Q Did you see anything that Sergeant Kawashimo or any Japanese did to these men?

A I didn't see because they were behind my prison cell. When they came out I didn't see them any more.

Q In fact, you don't know what happened to these six men?

A I did not see the six men because they were taken away and it was behind my prison cell.

Q Now, in regard to the two men that you did see, what time were they taken from the cell?

A More or less four o'clock in the afternoon.

Q Were their hands tied at eight o'clock on the morning of June 26, 1944?

A Yes, their hands were tied.

Q And that afternoon on June 24, 1944, did you see someone further tie these two men?

A I did not see anyone except Morata connecting the ropes to the neck, aided by one Japanese soldier.

Q Wasn't it Sumagaysay that tied the hands of these two men by a rope to their neck?

A No, sir.

Q And when was the last time that you saw these two men?

A When they were taken outside.

#cabatuan-2

Q And do you know where these two men reside?

A I know.

89

Q Do you know their names?

A I don't know their names.

Q Where do these two men reside?

A In Cabatuan.

Q Did you visit Cabatuan since June 26, 1944?

A No, sir.

Q How large a town, or barrio, is Cabatuan?

A It is a second or third-class town, more or less.

Q Approximately how many people live there?

A More or loss fifteen thousand.

Q Do you know many people at Cabatuan?

A I know many of them and I don't know many of them, too.

Q Will the interpreter check back the witness about the fifteen thousand? Is that the correct figure he said?

A Fifteen thousand.

Q How many?

A Fifteen thousand.

90

Q Do you read or speak Japanese?

A I don't know how to speak Japanese but if Japanese characters are shown to me with a book, I think I can understand Japanese writings. If Japanese writings are shown to me with a book in English translation --

MR. SIMON: (To interpreter.) Do you want me to withdraw the question?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Yes.

Q You mean you can read Japanese if you use an English-Japanese dictionary?

A Yes, sir.

Q That is the only Japanese you can read?

A Yes.

Q How often did you visit Motoki's office in 1944?

A There are times when I go there once in every month and sometimes I go there once in every two months.

Q Is that same true in 1943?

A I did not visit the office of Motoki in the year 1943.

Q When did those visits begin? When was your first monthly visit in 1944?

A If I recall, it was in the month of April.

Q Didn't you report to the Iloilo High School in September 1943 to go on this expedition with Captain Watanabe?

A No, I didn't report.

Q Where did you join this expedition in 1943?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the court, I see no connection. The man has testified that he went

91

On an expedition in his own town. The Japanese came to his town looking for guerrillas and he went with them in his town. I don't see any connection with the disproving of this case if this man joined the expedition of Captain Watanabe.

MR. SIMON: Counsel for the defense dOes not want to bring in his participation on an expedition through the back door. I merely am questioning the credibility of this witness as to his visits to the headquarters of the Tozuka Battalion and his return from an expedition.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will counsel state the relevancy at issue?

MR. SIMON: The credibility of this witness. He has been in this building prior to April 1944 and has been there many times in late 1943 and early 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The question is considered irrelevant in case you are not attempting to impeach the testimony of this witness. Will the defense advise the Commission as to whether or not he intends to impeach the testimony of this witness?

MR. SIMON: Sir, it is for impeachment purposes only, that his coming to the high school to accompany expeditions is being introduced. I will rephrase the question and ask him whether ho was there in a certain month and whether he was there prior to April 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Was your comment in the form of an objection?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir. I don't want

92

him to go into the year 1943. I don't mind him showing the witness had connections with the Japanese.

COLONEL WORTMAN On the principle that he is going to rephrase this question, would you withdraw your objection?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: That is satisfactory provided the question does not go too far into this matter.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. On that basis you may proceed.

Q Didn't you visit Iloilo High School in January 1944?

A No, sir.

Q How many times did you visit Motoki's office prior to your arrest in June 1944?

A Three or four times since the month of April until June.

Q Did the sign on Motoki's desk read "Jiro Motoki" or "Lieutenant Motoki?"

A Lieutenant Jiro Motoki.

Q Was that in English, Visayan or Japanese characters?

A It was both japanese and English.

Q Where was this sign kept on his desk?

A Shall I demonstrate?

Q Yes.

A There was a sign at the edge of the front of the desk and there was a board on the surface of the desk.

Q Did the sign tell what position Motoki had in the unit?

A No, it was only his name.

Q Wasn't there a sign in Japanese characters that said "Adjutant" on his desk.

93

A This was all that I saw.

Q What time of day was it that you visited Motoki in April 1944?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the court, what possible connection would the time of day show?

MR. SIMON: It was merely to see whether he was there during business hours. I will waive the question and ask him directly.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will withdraw my objection.

COLONEL WORTMAN: You may proceed.

Q Did you visit Motoki during the business day in April 1944?

A Yes.

Q How many people were working in that same room with Lieutenant Motoki?

A I can't recall.

Q Approximately?

A I can't recall the number of people working there. His desk was adjacent to Kawashimo's and it is not an important thing to me, so I can't remember.

Q How did you know that that was Sergeant Kawashimo's desk next to Lieutenant Motoki's desk?

A He has his name on his desk.

Q Is that also written in English and Japanese characters?

A Yes, sir, English and Japanese.

Q What did that sign say.

A "Sergeant Kawashimo".

Q Did the sign say. "Sergeant Major Kawashimo?"

94

A All that I can recall is "Sergeant Kawashimo."

Q Was Sergeant Matsusaki working in that same room?

A No, sir.

Q Did you see a Warrant Officer Aragane working in that room?

A I don't know.

Q Did you notice an officer that acted as Motoki's assistant working at the desk next to Lieutenant Motoki?

A I don't recall.

Q Did you notice whose name was on the door in the office next to Motoki's room?

95

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Is this April that you are referring to?

MR. SIMON: April 1944.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I see no connection with a name on the door in April 1944 next to Motoki's office.

MR. SIMON: Sir, I will change it to June 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you withdraw your objection?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Provided he questions him as to the correct time.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well.

Q Were you at Motoki's office sometime in June of 1944?

A I have not been in the office of Motoki in the month of June 1944.

Q Were you there subsequent to June 1944?

A In the months of May and April.

96

Q Now, in May were those same signs on Motoki's desk and Kawashimo's desk as you saw there in April 1944?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, did you notice the name on the door of the office next to Motoki's office in May of 1944?

A No, sir.

Q Did you notice Lieutenant Colonel Tozuka's name on the office next to Motoki's?

A I didn't see, sir.

Q Is there a radio or wireless room in the office next to Lieutenant Motoki's office?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If the Commission please, what connection could a radio next to Motoki's office have in this case? I can't see it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense show, if he can, the relevancy of that information asked for in that question?

MR. SIMON: Sir, the defense is merely probing into this witness' knowledge of the building that he has apparently visited several times during that month and any testimony that is elicited here will certainly corroborate testimony of the defense concerning the construction, location of offices and things within that building.

COLONEL WORTMAN: If the Commission understands you, you are trying to impeach the testimony of this witness, is that true or not?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is there any shorter method that you can employ to lay the foundation for that and accomplish it

97

without dragging too much extraneous, irrelevant details?

MR. SIMON: Sir, I will withdraw that last question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you withdraw the objection on that basis?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I would like to state for the information of the Commission that this witness graduated from the high school and he well knew the construction of the building at that time. Of course, at the time of the crimes he didn't know what changes had been made in it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the defense desire any such stipulation?

MR. SIMON: No, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

Q Didn't you originally tell War Crimes Investigating Detachment --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense please reword that question and avoid prefixing the prefactory phrase, "didn't you" or "did you not"?

MR. SIMON: I would like to ask it either one way or the other, positive or negative.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do that, it will greatly facilitate the matter of translation and it will insure you getting the information you want of the witness.

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

Q Did you tell a War Crimes Investigating Detachment officer or investigator that this incident that you testified

98

about happened in April or May of 1943?

(Interpreter Zosa converses at length with witness.)

MR. SIMON: Do you want me to withdraw the question and ask it in a different way?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Yes, sir.

MR. SIMON: All right.

Q Did you speak to a United States or Filipino army officer in connection with this killing incident --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the defense counsel please rephrase that question? It is long and confusing.

MR. SIMON: Sir, I would like to re-ask that original question. Will the reporter read that back, please?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Will you ask the defense to make the question specific?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Tell me what he said.

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Please make your question specific.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The defense has just stated that he was going to withdraw the long, confusing question he asked and re-ask his original question. I believe that was your statement?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir. I believe that --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will you restate your question, please?

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter please read back my previous question?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: And will you repeat that question to him, Miss Zosa?

99

(Interpreter Zosa converses with witness.)

A. No, sir.

BY MR. SIMON:

Q Didn't you tell Captain Yard originally that this incident occurred in April or May of 1943?

A No, sir.

Q When was the first time someone from the War Crimes investigating Detachment interviewed you?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission feels that in all fairness to the witness there is a likelihood that that might not be within the knowledge of this witness, he might not have knowledge as to where different investigators were coming from who interviewed him. Would you care to be a little more specific in this particular case? No doubt he was questioned by people from prosecution, defense, and also the investigating department.

MR. SIMON: The prosecution's investigation is a matter of judicial notice and is conducted by the War Crimes Investigating Department. They are part of the Prosecution Section. I will ask him if any army officer approached him.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That, I think, would be a fairer question to him for the reason that he might not know where these investigators came from.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The witness will explain that if it is within his knowledge how this transaction happened.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

BY MR. SIMON:

Q How did you bring this incidont to the attention of

100

War Crimes Investigating unit?

A In the month of March 1946, we were called by Captain Gestoso.

MR. SIMON: The defense requests a statement in the record, if it is not in already, as to the date these charges were drawn and served. Is that June 20 --

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: It is in the record as to when the charges were served. As to when the charges were drawn, I do not know, I did not draw them. They may bear a date as to the time that they were verified.

MR. SIMON: I have a date here, a blank date of May 1946, that is the original charge sheet.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The record indicates that the charges were served on the accused on the 24th of June, 1946.

MR. SIMON: Sir, is there an affidavit of the accuser? I wonder what date that is?

CAPTAIN O'GARA: The 29th of May --

MR. SIMON: 29th of May, 1946.

Q Did you tell Captain Gestoso that this incident occurred in April or May of 1943?

A No, sir.

Q Is he a Filipino army officer?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did he seem to understand the story that you were telling him at the time?

A He didn't understand everything.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: He added further that the question is not specific. I can understand a little Visayan.

101

INTERPRETER ZOSA: He said the question of the defense is not specific.

COLONEL WORTMAN: It will help and expedite the questioning of this witness if we avoid long and confusing questions and any question that might be slightly ambiguous. I know the defense has done everything it can to avoid that. I would appreciate it very much if you would avoid long, confusing questions, and questions susceptible of ambiguity.

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

Will the reporter read back for my information this last question the witness is having difficulty with?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

Q Did you tell your story to Captain Gestoso through an interpreter?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Has the witness answered your last question?

MR. SIMON: I am trying to ask this in a different way. If he can answer it I will be glad to have him do so.

COLONEL WORTMAN: We will have him answer that question. Will you read that back, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter )

A I don't fully understand.

Q Was there a Visayan interpreter present at the time you gave your story to the captain?

A He had no interpreter.

Q Did you sign a statement or an affidavit at that time concerning this incident?

102

A I did not sign any affidavit in the presence of Captain Gestoso.

Q Did you sign an affidavit in the presence of anyone concerning this incident?

A Yes, sir.

Q And did you read that affidavit before you signed it?

A Yes, I read it.

Q And did that tell the complete story of this incident?

A Was it the incident that happened June 24, 1944?

Q That is the incident, the only incident referred to here.

A Yes, sir.

Q And did that affidavit substantially correspond to the conversation you had with Captain Gestoso?

A No, sir.

Q In what respects did that affidavit differ from the story that you gave to Captain Gestoso?

A Everything was not fully written in the affidavit because Captain Gestoso informed me that some of the Japanese I accused had died already and it isn't necessary to take notes on the incident concerning these Japanese.

Q But all the notes concerning Lieutenant Motoki were taken and recorded in that affidavit?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense place his questions in an interrogative form to the witness, please?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

Will the reporter read back the question, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

Q Were all the notes taken by the captain concerning Lieutenant Motoki recorded in that affidavit?

103

A Some were recorded and some were not.

Q Didn't that affidavit show that this incident occurred in April or May of 1943?

A No, sir.

Q What did that affidavit state in connection with the date of this incident?

A June 24, 1944.

Q Are you sure of that?

A Yes, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess for ten minutes.

(Short recess.)

104

COLONEL WORTMAN: Tho Commission is in session.

Q Did you see the Charge and Specifications that the United States prepared against Motoki before coming to this courtroom.

A I saw it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense establish for the information of the Commission how the knowledge requested by the last question of the defense happened to be within the knowledge of the witness?

MR. SIMON: Sir, I would like to preface that with first fixing the date and then asking him how he got the information.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is wondering how the witness could have any knowledge of the Charge and Specifications now before this Commission.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Also, if the Commission please, I see no relevancy whether the witness saw the Charge and Specifications. What will that prove, if anything? Or if he says he did, it doesn't prove anything. If he says he didn't it doesn't prove anything.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense clear up the matter of relevancy for this information requested by the question.

MR. SIMON: The defense would like to postpone the clarification of that point until it is established as to time and how this witness saw the Charge and Specifications. The witness is an English speaking witness and there is materiality in the date when he first noticed that charges were preferred: That these charge sheets read as they were

105

originally prepared by Colonel Carpenter alleging a crime in April and May of 1943.

COLONEL WORTMAN: It is not believed that the knowledge requested in your last question is within the knowledge of the witness. The Commission is curious as to how that could be the case.

MR. SIMON: The witness has stated he saw it. Will the reporter read the last question and answer?

(The last question and answer were read by the reporter.)

Q Who showed it to you?

A My lawyer.

Q When?

MR. SIMON: I will withdraw the question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness has given an answer to the interpreter but as yet I do not believe the interpreter has had an opportunity to repeat that to the Commission.

MR. SIMON: If the Commission pleases, if the interpreter does not have the answer I will withdraw it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the interpreter have the answer?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Partly, when the witness said "yesterday".

COLONEL WORTMAN: if the defense has no objection we will have the witness finish his answer to the question.

MR. SIMON: No objection, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: I believe the reporter had better read the last question to the interpreter.

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the court, I

106

would like counsel to use the charge and specifications and show it to the witness to see whether he saw it. He may not understand this.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The suggestion of the prosecution is a good one and that is the only way you can definitely establish the point that you have asked him about.

A Aside from yesterday it was shown to me before I was taken by my lawyer to the stockade.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the defense follow through on the suggestion of the prosecution with reference to establishing whether or not the witness did actually see the charge and specifications before this Commission by handing him a copy of the charge and specifications.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Before that time, Sir, I would like to get something straight. The witness told the interpreter something about an affidavit in this last conversation. When she interpreted the answer she didn't quite include the conversation. I would like to know whether any such conversation took place.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the interpreter clear that matter up?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: He asked me whether it was the affidavit that he signed concerning the incident, or was it the charge and specifications against Motoki. I said, "the charge and specifications against Motoki."

MR. SIMON: Would it please the Commission, the point is not highly material and I am willing to drop it completely.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Have you completed the answer to the last question?

107

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Yes.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission reiterates its request to the defense of a moment ago with reference to establishing whether or not the witness actually ever did see the charge and specifications now before this Commission.

108

Q Are these the Charge and Specifications that were shown to you by your attorney?

(A document is shown to the witness.)

A This is not the one. This is 1943 and mine was 1944. The date in the first Specification here is April and May 1943.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Just a moment. The Commission wants this information accurately in the record. I don't want to go any further until this is properly recorded. Will the reporter read the statement of the witness with reference to the paper he now has in his hand?

(The last answer was read by the reporter.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is there any other amplifying statement that he wants to make in connection with that paper?

A It must be June 24.

COLONEL WORTMAN: What was that, please?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: He said June 24, 1944.

MR. SIMON: He said it must be June?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Yes.

BY MR. SIMON:

Q Did you discuss this incident with Margarita Rodriguez?

A No, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is the defense counsel talking abut the incident with reference to seeing the Charge and Specification or about the incident of the killing of the eight people?

109

MR. SIMON: I am sorry, Sir.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will you read the last question?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

MR. SIMON: I will rephrase the question. Did you discuss this incident involving these eight people held at the jail with Margarita Rodriguez?

A No, sir.

Q Did you discuss this case with anyone?

A When I came out from my prison cell I told someone else.

Q Was that Lieutenant Sustento of the 63d Infantry Regiment?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Give that answer now -- you can interpret what he said.

A He was the battalion S-2 under Major Golez.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The first word he said was "ende", he did not discuss it, and then he said the other part.

A Yes, I told him right after I came out from my prison cell.

Q Did Motoki visit these eight men on June 24, 1944?

A No, sir.

Q Did he visit these men on June 25, 1944?

110

A No, sir.

Q Did he visit them on June 26, 1944?

A Yes, sir.

Q What time of the day did he come there?

A At two o'clock in the afternoon.

Q How long did he stay in that cell?

A Between twenty and thirty minutes.

Q And did he then leave the cell?

A Yes, sir.

Q And did he return that same day to the cell?

A No more.

Q Did he beat or torture the prisoners while he was there that afternoon?

A No, sir.

Q Were the prisoners being beaten at that time?

A At that time they were not beaten.

COLONEL WORTMAN: For the information of the Commission, exactly what time does the defense counsel have in mind?

MR. SIMON: Sir, these twenty to thirty minutes between 1400 and 1430.

COLONEL WORTMAN: On what date?

MR. SIMON: 26 June 1944, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. That clears up the matter, but the Commission will appreciate it very much indeed if you will more frequently state the time to keep the witness refreshed on the exact incident and time you are talking about.

111

MR.SIMON: Yes, Sir.

Will the reporter read back that last question, or those last two questions regarding Motoki's visiting the cell?

(The questions referred to were read by the reporter.)

Q Did you talk to Motoki about two o'clock the afternoon of June 26, 1944?

A No, sir.

Q Did Lieutenant Motoki go past your cell on the afternoon of June 26,1944?

A He passed by.

Q Didn't you call to him and tell him your troubles that afternoon?

A No, sir.

Q What did Motoki do when he was in the cell with these eight men during those twenty minutes on June 26, 1944?

A I saw him talking with Kawashimo.

Q Did he talk to any of the prisoners?

A No, sir.

Q Did he talk to any of the other Japanese

A No, sir.

Q Did he talk to Sergeant Kawashimo in the cell or outside of the cell?

A Inside.

Q Did Sergeant Kawashimo salute and report to Lieutenant Motoki?

A When I saw him he was not giving any salute, but

112

I Saw him talking with him.

Q And you only heard the one word of the conversation that afternoon?

A I only heard that word being spoken aloud, "Korosu Zo."

Q And how many times was that word repeated?

A Only once, When he was about to leave the cell.

Q And did he leave immediately after you heard that one word?

A Yes, sir.

Q And what was done with the prisoners between two thirty in the afternoon of June 26, 1944, and five o'clock that evening?

A They were taken out of the cell one by one.

Q At what time?

A Between four and five o'clock in the afternoon.

Q Did you hear Sergeant Kawashimo say that word "Korosu Zo?"

A No, sir.

Q You didn't? Did you hear anything that Sergeant Kawashimo told Lieutenant Motoki?

A No, sir.

Q Who secured your release from the prison?

A Dr. Caram with Matsusake came to my prison cell.

Q And what day was that?

A It was four nights and four days after about two or three o'clock in the afternoon.

113

Q Were you informed that it was Sergeant Matsusaki that saved your life at that time?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Is counsel inferring by that that he was supposed to loose his life because the Japanese caught him?

MR. SIMON: It very often happens.

A Dr. Caram and Matsusaki came to my prison cell. Dr. Caram informed me that "I guarantee my life to the Japanese for you."

Q After that you were released?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you know the mayor of Zaraga in the year 1944?

A Yes sir, I know him.

Q What is his name?

A Eliseo Mijares.

Q Did you know a Mr. Baclay?

A I know Baclay.

Q Wasn't he the mayor of Zaraga in 1944?

A At the time of the incident it was Mayor Mijares.

Q What had happened to Mr. Baclay at the time of this incident in June of 1944?

A Nothing happened to Mr. Baclay in the year 1944. It was in the year 1943 when he was the mayor of Zaraga he was killed.

Q Wasn't he killed in early 1944?

A No, sir.

Q When was he killed?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness has just stated that he was killed in 1943 and it is felt that the last question

114

was a duplication and repetition of the question that you had previously asked. Am I correct in that?

MR. SIMON: Sir, I believe he stated that he was mayor in 1943 and then he told me who the mayor was in 1944 and I want to know when this man was killed.

COLONEL WORTMAN: He followed that with the statement that he was killed.

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

Q Did you hear any screams or noises from the cell in which Margarita Rodriguez and her companions were confined?

A No, sir.

Q That was from June 24,1944 until June 28, 1944 when you were released?

A Yes, sir, four nights that I was kept in the prison cell when I was released.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any redirect examination?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY LIEUTENANT FINLEY:

Q When the officer came back to you to sign the statement, that is, after you had been interviewed by Captain Gestoso, did you then tell him the correct date that the eight men were in the high school?

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission believes that the question is not quite clear. The first portion of it, you were asking about a paper that was brought back to the witness for his signature, whereas the question seems to indicate that the paper was brought back for the signature of the officer who was taking the statements.

115

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Will the reporter read the question?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

MR. SIMON: There is some ambiguity there. I think, the prosecution should phrase it and then have the interpreter give it to the witness in the manner in which it now stands so I can understand which question is being asked.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the prosecution re-word the question so as to show that it was the paper brought to the witness?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I withdraw the question.

Q Were you interviewed by Captain Gestoso?

A What kind of interview?

Q With reference to your knowledge of war crimes in Panay.

A Yes, sir.

Q Did some other officer later bring a paper for you to sign?

A Yes, sir.

Q At the time he brought that paper did you tell him that the incident concerning the eight men occurred in June 1944?

A Yes, sir.

Q State whether or not he told you that he would correct his records according to this information.

A I was the one who told him.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The reply is not in direct response to the question. Will the reporter repeat the question to the witness again, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

116

A I told Lieutenant Yenko that it was in June 24th 1944, two days I was confined in my prison cell that eight men were brought to a cell near my cell.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness has not as yet answered that question, and the part of the question that he has not answered specifically is as to whether or not the officer who took the statement from him said that he would correct it in accordance with the suggestion of the witness.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: In view of the difficuIty in interpretation may I put that as a leading question?

COLONEL WORTMAN: You may.

Q Did the officer tell you that he would correct the statement?

A I was the one who told them to make the correction, to fix the date to June 24th, 1944.

Q After you told him to make the correction did he say that he would do it?

A Lt. Yenko told me that he would change the date to June 24th 1944.

Q You stated on cross-examination that you are acquainted with Eriberto Pavillar. I show you a photograph marked for purposes of identification as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to study this photograph.

(Lt. Finley hands photograph to witness.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: I do not want the Commission to see that until it has been accepted in evidence.

A I know him.

Q What is his name?

A Eriberto Pavillar.

117

Q The person who you referred to in cross-examination?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I will rephrase the question.

Q Is he Eriberto Pavillar to whom you referred to on crose-examination?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I withdraw the question.

MR. SIMON: Will the interpreter please give us the answer as she now has it so that counsel for defense can understand the testimony?

COLONEL WORTMAN: I think that that should be done and if the prosecution has no objection the interpreter will furnish the Commission such portion of the witness' answer as she now has.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: That is perfectly satisfactory.

A Let me explain to you that during my cross-examination I said, do you mean that this one has connection with the eight men?

Q I mean, is he Eriberto Pavillar to whom you referred as one of the four boys who were in the truck?

MR. SIMON: Would it please the Commission, I would object to the question as leading. If this witness is able to identify the exhibit now in his hands, he make such identification, and if he cannot, it should be withdrawn from the evidence.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The witness has stated the name of this boy is Eriberto Pavillar. I asked him, is this the same picture of the person he referred to as Eriberto Pavillar on his cross-examination. We were never able to get an answer to that question. If the interpreter can get the answer to that question, I would like to have it.

118

If she can't I would like to continue my questions in order to identify this person.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Would the defense have any objection if the prosecution asks the question, "Who is that a picture of?".

MR. SIMON: That will be fine, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you withdraw your objection on that basis?

MR. SIMON: Yes, Sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, you may proceed.

119

Q Who is this a picture of?

A Eriberto Pavillar.

Q Is this Eriberto Pavillar represented in the picture the same Eriberto Pavillar that you said was in the truck?

A Yes, sir.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: At this time the prosecution offers in evidence the photograph as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 4.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is there any objection?

MR. SIMON: I object to it as incompetent and irrelevant since it does not concern anything this witness is testifying about.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Further comment by the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The defense brought out on cross-examination several matters which he intends to secure information for the defense in the Specification No. 2. He asked this witness the names of these four persons and the witness gave the names as being in the truck at his house. This Eriberto Pavillar is an alleged victim in Specification 2, and we think that that witness -- that it is proper for him to identify the photograph of this person as being the same person he told counsel on cross-examination was in the truck at his house.

MR. SIMON: Sir, I will withdraw my objection.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. You may proceed.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No further questions --

COLONEL WORTMAN: The photograph will be accepted in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 4 in view of the fact that the defense has withdrawn its objection to the admission of this document.

120

(Prosecution's Exhibit No. 4 was admitted into evidence.)

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The prosecution has no further questions of this witness.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Questions by the Commission?

MR. SIMON: Sir, I have one question.

COLONEL WORTMAN: You may ask it.

BY MR. SIMON:

Q Was this statement or affidavit that you signed for Captain Gestoso prepared the same day that you gave him your story?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If the Commission please, the word is wrong. He never signed a statement for Gestoso, there is nothing in the record to show that he did. He can say "no" to the question and the answer would still be true.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that an objection or a comment?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: It is a suggestion so that counsel can correct it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The position of the prosecution is well taken and the question is misleading. The defense will rephrase its question.

BY MR. SIMON:

Q How soon after you told your story to this army officer were you given a paper to sign that contained your story?

A Two days after.

Q And what date was it that you signed this paper for Lieutenant Yenko?

A I can't recall the date.

121

Q Approximately what month was it in?

COLONEL WORTMAN: Will the interpreter give us an answer to that, please?

A It was about the month of October.

Q What year?

A 1945.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will recess for ten minutes.

(Short recess.)

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

BY MR. SIMON:

Q Did you line out and initial the corrections in the statement before you signed it?

A I did not make any corrections in the statement. I only told Lieutenent Yenko to correct the date.

Q Did you sign the statement as it was, uncorrected?

A I signed it and I was told by Lieutenant Yenko that I should check it, make a check mark.

Q And did you take an oath at that time that everything in that statement was true and correct?

A As I read the statements I called the attention of Lieutenant Yenko to the correction to be made in the paper about the date and Lieutenant Yenko told me to sign it and he would make the correction.

MR. SIMON: Will the reporter read back my last question, please?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

122

COLONEL WORTMAN: The witness will answer that question. Will the interpreter repeat that question to the witness?

INTERPRETER ZOSA: Yes, Sir.

A I called the attention of Lieutenant Yenko that the date was incorrect, that the date must be June 24, 1944.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The answer is irresponsive to the question. The witness will answer the question. The reporter will repeat the question back to the witness.

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If it please the Commission, I think his answer is sufficient in that he said he signed the statement at Lieutenant Yenko's suggestion that he would go ahead and sign it and he would make the correction. It is clear what he intended to do with the correction --

COLONEL WORTMAN: That is foreign to the matter the defense asked the witness. Will the reporter read the question to the witness again?

(The last question was read by the reporter.)

A Yes, sir.

MR. SIMON: No further questions, Sir.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No further questions from the prosecution.

COLONEL WORTMAN. Questions by the Commission?

CAPTAIN O'GARA: No questions, Sir.

MAJOR ARCHAVALA: I have no questions.

COLONEL WORTMAN: There appear to be no further questions. The witness is excused.

(Witness excused.)

123

MR. SIMON: The defense requests that a subpoena duces tecum be issued directed to the Chief of Records Section, War Crimes Investigating Detachment, compelling him to produce for this Commission the affidavit or statement signed by Jose Dimzon in October 1945.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comment from the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Sir, any record that may be made a matter of this section is a record of the Legal Section of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, and we take the position that it is not within the authority of the Commission to issue a subpoena directed to compel production of this record.

MR. SIMON: This Commission is a fact-finding body. It is entitled to have any information available that is available in the files and archives of the enemy regardless of clafficiation, and it is entitled to have any information possessed by our Government or by the Allied Powers. Wherever this Commission sits, its authority runs concurrent with the authority that set up the commission, namely, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and you are endowed with like powers and your subpoena powers are as wide and thorough as he has endowed you in letter dated 5 December 1945.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comment by the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No further comment.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission will go into closed session.

CLOSED SESSION

124

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in open session.

The request of the defense is not granted. The Commission is an agency of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers and is therefore without authority to issue any instructions with reference to the subpoenaing of records in the custody of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. If the defense desires any records in the custody of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, a formal request for such records should be made in the normal manner through military channels.

MR. SIMON: Would it please the Commission, the normal channels for evidence, witnesses or material desired by the defense is through process of this Commission. Prior Commissions have denied defense motions to subpoena the entire file and records of Legal Section SCAP on the theory that it was an omnibus request. We wanted all their files. In this particular case we have had a witness testify about a certain document. Without the aid of this Commission the defense is unable to produce the record it desires and to properly defend this case; to give this man a thorough, fair and adequate trial on all the facts that are available in this matter. These papers are available right here in Manila. In fact, there are four copies, two of which are kept in the records section, one of which the prosecution gets, and one Tokyo gets. It is not a highly classified document. It is not a secret document. It is not confidential. All it is is a restricted statement and, therefore, defense

125

feels handicapped in its defense through its inability to secure the requested statement.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The comment of the president of the Commission is final insofar as the Commission is concerned. The defense may make the application to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers through the nornal military channels for such documents as it may need in connection with its case.

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, the defense requests that this commission take judicial notice that the Defense Section of War Crimes Trials have made an administrative effort to secure these files and records through the Executive Officer, War Crimes Trials, and in turn, through the Judge Advocate Section of AFWESPAC, and the final decision of that is still in abeyance.

LIEUTENANT: FINLEY: Will the defense counsel state whether that request pertains to this situation or a situation wherein all the records of the War Crimes Investigation Detachment are sought.

MR. SIMON: The nature of the conferences concerning War Crimes Investigating Detachment records related to all of their files and records that concern reports of investigations of alleged war crimes. We have made no special effort administratively to secure this one. However, we request from the prosecution, in the interests of justice and expediency and a fair trial for Lieutenant Motoki, that prosecution secure and produce for the defense a copy of the statement or affidavit signed by the witness, Jose Dimzon, without the necessity of subpoenaing.

126

COLONEL WORTMAN: The request of the defense is not granted for the reasons stated a few moments ago by the President of this Commission.

MR. SIMON: We requested that through the Commission. We merely make a request to the prosecution for that. We were not asking the Commission to invoke their powers to grant it.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The request before this Commission is a matter which the Commission naturally will determine. The request of the defense to have the prosecution procure the records in question is not granted by the Commission.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I might state in that connection, sir, that I have no authority to either secure or release any records that belong to the Legal Section, SCAP.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That is a very appropriate remark. The Commission will recess until 1300 this afternoon.

(The Commission recessed at 1115 hours, to reconvene at 1300 hours.)

127

AFTERNOON SESSION

The Commission reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 1305 hours.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: May the record show that the three members of the Commission, the defendent and his personal interpreter, the prosecution and the defense counsel are present in the courtroom.

I have a statement I would like to make with reference to the statement signed by Jose Dimzon.

COLONEL WORTMAN: You may do so.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Counsel for the accused has attempted in several manners to secure this statement. In previous cases that I have prosecuted it has been my policy to give the members of the defense counsel access to any information that I might have that either tends to prove or disprove the guilt of any accused. In this case I have never been requested to give any such information to the defense counsel before the time that the request was made in court. During the recess I have taken up with our headquarters the situation in which this trial now exists.

COLONEL WORTMAN: And will you make it a matter of record as to the headquarters that you are now referring to when you say "our headquarters"?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: As I understand it, Sir, the headquarters is designated "Legal Section, Manila" and we are assigned to "Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers". I understnnd that that is a branch of the Legal Section of SCAP.

128

COLONEL WORTMAN: It definitely is.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I have been authorized to take certain courses of action with reference to this statement not admitting the power of the court to compel SCAP to produce this statement or not setting a precedent that that office is willing to allow its records to be inspected. I would like at this time for the counsel for the accused to state his specific reasons why he would like this statement to be before the court.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well, we will ask him for that information. Before we hear from the defense counsel the Commission desires to Advise the prosecutor that instructions concerning his preparation of his case emanates from his own headquarters, which is the Legal Section of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers In Manila. The Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the activities of the prosecutor in preparing his cases and handling the documents entrusted to him as a functionary of the legal section office.

The Commission would like to have the defense furnish the information just requested by the prosecutor.

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, the defense did use the statements signed by Jose Dimzon in October 1945 at the time when these incidents that he related were fresh in his mind, no pressure or other proceedings then evident, to examine that statement and see if it corroborates or contradicts the present sworn statement of Jose Dimzon now before this Commission. If it contradicts or impeaches that witness we believe the Commission should be accorded an opportunity to examine it and determine in which

129

particularities and materialities the contradiction exists.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Does counsel have any other reason that he desires the statement?

MR. SIMON: There would be no other reason, Sir.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If the Commission please, we take it that this reason is one of the strong reasons that we do not desire to put these statements in is that you get parallel issues in. Counsel could just as well ask the witness the names of every person he has discussed this matter with before and then ask the witness what he told every one of those persons, there would be seventy-one of them, and bring the seventy-one into court to contradict the witness. That is one of the reasons we don't desire to start a precedence of allowing these statements to come in, Sir. I will state at this time in view of the record as it now stands, tending to produce the word -- insinuate, possibly, that we are attempting to suppress evidence which would be useful in proving the innocence or guilt of the accused. In this particular case I have been authorized to read into the record such portions of this statement as relate only to the incident at trial without reading into the record portions of the statement that relate to separate and other atrocities, or without reading into the record the notes and annotations and information endorsed on the statement by the Legal Section or any opinions that they may have endorsed on there as to the value or as to the use of the documents.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Is that the statement that the defense has been trying to get a copy of?

130

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, Sir. If he so desires I will at this time read into the record all portions of this record as relate to this specification.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does the defense desire that the prosecution read portions of this statement into the record at this time?

MR. SIMON: No, Sir, on the ground that the prosecution cannot corroborate the statement of its own witness by producing portions of his statement that repeat what he said on the stand. Defense feels that after he examines this record if it does corroborate everything then we are satisfied that the Commission has all facts and that nothing has been suppressed. If this statement, upon examination by the defense, reveals that there is a material changing of the facts, we feel that this Commission should be informed of it and should be informed of the materiality of the change and it is for them in making their sentence and findings in this case to consider this original story of Jose Dimzon and the present story that he now tells on this stand and the person to introduce that story would be, and the only ones who can introduce it is Counsel for the defense, and it can only be introduced in an impeachment and not as original evidence to be read into the record by the prosecution or even, for that matter, by the defense, unless it is actually impeaching the witness.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Does the defense counsel desire an impression to the Commission that the prosecution will not carry out as agreed to?

131

MR. SIMON: Counsel for the defense does not make any inference as to what the prosecution will or will not do, only as a formal legal matter and as correct procedure the purpose for which that statement can be used, and the only purpose is for impeachment and it is for the defense to use it to impeach him and if the prosecutor is dissatisfied, he can further use that certain portion of the statement to corroborate the other but it is for us to first use the statement for the impeachment purpose.

132

COLONEL WORTMAN: Has the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers authorized portions of that document to be read into the record in this case?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I have been authorized to read into the record all portions of that document which in any way pertain to this Specification and also state I am willing to do so at this time.

COLONEL WORTMAN: By whom?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: By the Legal Section, SCAP. I have no intention of suppressing anything.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The legal section under what headquarters?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: The legal section is part of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, it is my understanding.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Your understanding is strictly in accordance with the Commission's understanding.

MR. SIMON: Does the prosecution have any objection to examination of this statement by the counsel for the accused if, thereafter, we find anything that materially impeaches this witness? I would desire to introduce it if defense feels the witness has straightened out his story and the accepted story can be accepted for what it is worth. I cannot consent to a reading into the record as more evidence for the prosecution from a statement given by this witness. The defense requests what purpose would prosecution have reading that statement rather than permitting an examination and determination whether it impeaches that

133

witness by the defense.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: In answer to that, this is a privilege that has been given to the defense and is not a matter of right, and the statement contains certain annotations made by the prosecution section as to the cases which are pending before this court. We don't see it proper that this defense counsel be allowed to go on a fishing expedition into our files.

MR. SIMON: Please, sir, the defense does not desire any annotation made by Legal Section, SCAP, on any of their personal opinions or conclusions of the witness. However, there are four records made of every statement handled by the War Crimea Investigating Detachment. Two copies of each statement are kept with records section of Legal Section, Manila. The prosecution will be given one to look over, and one goes to Tokyo for the master file. Therefore, either we could check one of those two copies that are not annotated in the records section. Further, counsel takes exception to the legal theory advanced that this Commission does not possess the authority to subpoena this record, although this Commission does not desire to do so. By letter 5 December, the Commission has the authority to do so.

COLONEL WORTMAN: You have a request before the Commission for permission to read certain portions of that document into the record, I believe. Is that correct, or not?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: All of it, which pertains to this specification, sir.

134

COLONEL WORTMAN: And you are reading those into the record with the permission and authority of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, is that correct?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Yes, sir. I received those instructions through my headquarters.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The defense has objected to that action on the part of the prosecution. Is that correct?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir. It is legally improper for prosecution to read a statement of an accused that has taken the stand to corroborate his testimony. If there are now inconsistencies in the story, such a statement can be used to impeach the witness. That same procedure has been followed by the prosecution section when they have taken statements from these accused Japanese war criminals and when they take the stand in their own behalf, prosecution shoves it under their noses and the prosecution says, "Didn't you say at such-and-such a time a different story than you are now giving?"

Defense at this time requests opportunity --

COLONEL WORTMAN: You have one request before the Commission at this time. Let us dispose of that first. Is that agreeable?

MR. SIMON: My present status is in the form of an objection to his reading this statement in corroboration of his own witness.

COLONEL WORTMAN: That is correct. The Commission will recess for three minutes.

(Short recess.)

135

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is in session.

MR. SIMON: Defense withdraws its objection and accepts --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Accepts the offer of the prosecution --

MR. SIMON: To read in evidence a statement by Jose Dimzon executed in 1945 and accepts the offer that all portions of that statement relating to Specification 1 of the charges in this case be read to the Commission.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Any comment by the prosecution?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: No comment, sir. I will now read those portions of the statement which in any way pertain - --

COLONEL WORTMAN: Before you read those I would like to again ask the defense whether he accepts the offer of the prosecution to the reading of the portion of that document in question into the record of the case.

MR. SIMON: The defense accepts the offer but does not admit the truth of any statement contained in that affidavit, and further requests that defense be permitted to observe as prosecution reads from that statement.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: If counsel intends to insinuate I will not truly read the record, I will withdraw my offer.

MR. SIMON: There is no insinuation. I think it is just courtesy that I be permitted to go over and read along with him.

COLONEL WORTMAN: I believe there is a slight misunderstanding on the part of the prosecution, and I ask the

136

prosecution whether he would have any serious objection to the defense observing the paper as he reads the portions into the record that he has offered to read. The exact purpose of the defense is not known to the Commission. Possibly the defense would like ---

MR. SIMON: Defense has the utmost confidence that the prosecution will read all items pertaining to this case.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: In that event I see no reason why he should insist on that position.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is inclined to feel the same way the prosecution does in this matter and I believe the defense will probably agree in that and I ask you whether you will be satisfied to have him pick those portions which pertain to this case and read them in without the defense looking over his shoulder to be sure that he is including every single little item.

MR. SIMON: Defense so consents.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I have some annotations on the thing, sir, which are briefly stated.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The offer of the prosecution to read portions of the document in question into the record has been accepted by the defense. I believe that is correct, is it not?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir. I understand the offer extends to all portions of that document relating to this incident.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. With that understanding

137

by the prosecution and the defense, the Commission authorizes the reading of those portions of the document in question into the record in this case.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Reading at this time from the statement in writing given by Jose B. Dimzon and sworn to by Jose B. Dimzon on the 21st day of November, 1945, before Mariano A. Yenko, First Lieutenant, Infantry, Philippine Army, Investigating Officer, War Crimes Investigating Detachment. Reading from the statement --

MR. SIMON: While you are getting to the affidavit, is there an affidavit by the interpreter back there?

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: Does defense counsel desire me to read this statement or does he desire to examine our files further?

MR. SIMON: I am sorry. You may proceed.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you withdraw your request for information with reference to notations on that document?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir. I never did request the notation. He was merely telling who it was sworn to before. I was trying to find out before whom it was interpreted, as being a pertinent question relating to this incident.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Are you satisfied to go ahead without that information?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Do you feel that the information that is requested would serve any particularly useful purpose to the defense?

MR. SIMON: Sir, it is just to get the complete story;

138

if there was an interpreter there, a Visayan Interpreter, who it was? It is just to get the background of the story.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The defense is aware of the fact that the prosecution has been authorized to read certain portions of the document into the record in this case by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and the limit to which he can go in reading that document into the record is known only to him and the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Therefore, as I understand the situation, the defense is satisfied to accept his offer and to have him read such portions of that document into the record as he is able to read into the record in accordance with his instructions from higher authority.

MR. SIMON: Sir, it is my understanding that he is now permitted to read everything in that document pertaining to this case by his higher authorities, and that is what I am satisfied he proceed to read.

COLONEL WORTMAN: In other words, you are satisfied to have him state he is authorized to read into the record?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir.

COLONEL WORTMAN: Very well. You may proceed.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: About the dates: The witness stated October. I want defense counsel to know he signed it in November.

139

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: (Reading): "JOSE B. DIMZON, after having been duly sworn, testified at No. 99, I, de la Rama Street, Iloilo City, Panay Island, on 13 November 1945, as follows:

"Q State your name, age, nationality, occupation, civil status and address,

"A Jose B. Dimzon, 30, Filipino, farmer, Iznart Street, Iloilo City.

* * *

"Q In case you change your address, where may we locate you?

"A In Barrio Pagdugue, Dumangas, Iloilo Province.

"Q What were your activities during the entire length of the Japanese occupation of Iloilo?

"A I assumed the post of puppet-mayor of Dumangas on 17 August 1943, when Marcelo Buenaflor was relieved. I was appointed by Dr. Fermin Caram, puppet-governor of Iloilo * * * I hold the post of puppet mayor of Dumangas up to 15 October 1944. On this day, having accomplished the mission assigned to me by Major Salcedo, G-2 of Peralta's guerrillas, which was to sketch a map of Iloilo * * * showing the positions of the Japanese

140

garrisons, I escaped from Dumangas with four other companions. * * * I went to Arevalo, Iloilo, and succeeded in joining a unit of Peralta's guerrillas on 20 October 1944. I stayed with the guerrillas up to the landing of the Americans on this island on March 20, 1945.

* * *

"Q Were you ever again victimized after that?

#eightmen-2

"A Yes, on 27 of April 1943, I was captured in my house by a Filipino spy named Juan Sumagaysay, now dead, and six Japanese soldiers. I was brought to the Iloilo High School garrison and there once more I was tortured and badly beaten up for three full days. My hands were tied behind my back and my body was lifted so that my toes hardly touched the floor. I was slapped, kicked and struck with a piece of wood by Sergeant-Major Kawashimo who was the official torturer of the garrison. I was confined in a little cell for three days, during which I was tortured upon order of 1st Lt. Motoki, who was then acting as officer-in-charge of the Iloilo High School garrison. I saw him give the orders.

"Q Did you ever witness any atrocity committed by members of the Iloilo High School garrison during your confinement there?

"A Yes. During the time I was confined at the garrison jail I saw with my own eyes the torture of

141

eight Filipino prisoners by a Filipino spy named Vicente Morata, now dead. From my cell I saw how Morata clubbed to death two of these prisoners with a large stick of wood. Tho other six were tortured, but survived. This happened on or about May 3, 1943. Then I heard Lt. Motoki give orders to Sergeant Kawashimo to kill the six remaining prisoners. Motoki gave the orders in the Japanese language, but since I knew the meaning of some Japanese words, I plainly understood what he said. The last phrase he uttered was 'Kill them all'. I never saw any of these men again, because right after the orders were given I saw Sergeant Kawashimo lead them to the backyard of the school building, where they were disposed of. I am sure that they were slain because a few minutes afterwards I saw Kawashimo came back alone and wipe his blood-stained sword. His clothes were also stained with blood.

#cabatuan-3

"Q Who were those eight victims?

"A I don't know their names. They were civilians who were brought over from Cabatuan, Iloilo. All were young men from 14 to 18 years old.

"Q Would you be able to identify Lt. Motoki?

"A Certainly, the very moment I see him again.

* * *

"Q Do you know if any of the victims mentioned in this statement had been formally accused or

142

given a fair trial before his death?

"A There was never any formal accusation or trial at any time during the Japanese regime. They were captured, questioned while being tortured, then put to death arbitrarily. * * * ."

That is all in the statement that in any way pertains to this specification, Sir.

MR. SIMON: If it please the Commission, the defense has only one request and that is whether there is any change in that statement in those lining-outs we talked about.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I state, Sir, to the Commission that they are corrected, but in fairness I do not know who corrected or when they were corrected ---

COLONEL WORTMAN: Does that satisfy the defense?

MR. SIMON: Yes, sir, and the defense wants to thank the prosecutor for his full and fair disclosure of this statement and the defense believes that it should be a policy that such be the case in all war crimes cases that the entire story be read to the Commission.

LIEUTENANT FINLEY: I might call to the attention of the Commission that some three hours has been consumed and I see no benefit whatsoever has resulted.

COLONEL WORTMAN: The Commission is very well pleased with the action of both prosecution and defense in connection with the document which has just been read from.

The prosecution may proceed with the presentation of its case.

143