Treason Digests

H U R S D A Y, D E C E M B E R 1 7 , 2 0 0 9

78 PHIL 721 People vs. Manayao

FACTS: The three accused were charged with treason complexed with multiple murder in the People’s Court. They participated in the massacre of several citizens who were suspected to have been helping the guerillas. The accused claimed that they cannot be tried since the Court has no jurisdiction. Furthermore, they claimed that they had renounced their Filipino citizenship after joining the Japanese paramilitary Makapili, and then swearing allegiance to Japan.

HELD/RATIO: The accused were found guilty. The Makapili is not a part of the Japanese army. It was an organization of Filipino traitors. Moreover, there is no evidence that the accused swore to an oath of allegiance when they entered the said organization. Furthermore, it is the lone prerogative of the State to allow or deny one’s change of citizenship. L A B E L S : C R I M I N A L L AW 2

80 PHIL 138 People vs. Prieto

FACTS: Accused Prieto was charged with treason. During the Japanese occupation, the accused joined the paramilitary force of the Japanese and acted as an undercover agent for them. He assisted in several executions of suspected guerillas. He was charged of 7 counts of treason. He admitted to counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, but didn’t admit to counts 4, 5, and 6. The special prosecutor was only able to present evidence to support count 4.

HELD/RATIO: The accused was found guilty of treason for counts 1,2,3, and 7; but, he was acquitted for count 4. For counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, the accused was guilty since he admitted. However, he cannot be held liable for count 4 since the two-witness rule wasn’t met. The two witnesses testified to two different incidents. In a different light, common crimes are absorbed in treason. L A B E L S : C R I M I N A L L AW 2

83 PHIL 314 People vs. Perez

FACTS: Accused Perez was charged with treason and rape. The accused kidnapped several women in

order to present them to a Japanese Commander to satisfy the latter’s carnal pleasure against the will of the women. In some instances, the accused himself raped several women.

HELD/RATIO: The accused was acquitted in relation to the crime of treason; but, he was found guilty in relation to the crime of rape. The acts of the accused in relation with the Japanese didn’t directly and materially tend to improve the war efforts or to weaken the power of the United States. Moreover, intent of disloyalty – which is essential in the crime of treason – is lacking. Nevertheless, the accused can be held liable for the several counts of rape he committed. L A B E L S : C R I M I N A L L AW 2

77 PHIL 856 Laurel vs. Misa 77 Phil. 856

FACTS: The accused was charged with treason. During the Japanese occupation, the accused adhered to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort. He claims that he cannot be tried for treason since his allegiance to the Philippines was suspended at that time. Also, he claims that he cannot be tried under a change of sovereignty over the country since his acts were against the Commonwealth which was replaced already by the Republic.

HELD: The accused was found guilty. A citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. No transfer of sovereignty was made; hence, it is presumed that the Philippine government still had the power. Moreover, sovereignty cannot be suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated and replaced. Sovereignty per se wasn’t suspended; rather, it was the exercise of sovereignty that was suspended. Thus, there is no suspended allegiance. Regarding the change of government, there is no such change since the sovereign – the Filipino people – is still the same. What happened was a mere change of name of government, from Commonwealth to the Republic of the Philippines.

PEOPLE V. ADRIANO FACTS: -Apolonio Adriano owing allegiance to the US and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation of aid allegiance, did then and there willfully, criminally and treasonably adhere to the Military Forces of Japan In the Philippines, against which the Philippines and the United States were then at war, giving the said enemy aid and comfort.

-The accused is alleged to be a member of the Makapili and alleged to be a member of the Makapili and alleged to have been bore arms and joined and assisted the Japanese Military Forces and the Makapili Army in armed conflicts and engagements against the US armed forces and the Guerillas. -TC found that the accused participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation of personal property. The court below, however, said these acts had not been established by the testimony of two witnesses, and so regarded then merely as evidence of adherence to the enemy. There is only one item on which the witnesses agree: it is that the defendant was a Makapili and was seen by them in Makapili uniform carrying arms. ISSUE: Whether being a mere member of Makapili shows overt acts of committing treason. HELD: Yes. The mere fact of having joined a Makapili is evidence of both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort unless forced upon one against his will. Being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act. It is not necessary that the defendant actually went to battle or committed nefarious acts against his country or countrymen. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself at the enemy’s call to fight side by side with him when the opportune time came even though an opportunity never presented itself. Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort. The enemy derived psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals or the country with which his was at war. SC set aside the judgment of the SC.