Beth - 1 Phil 437 U.S. vs. Abad G.R. No. L-976, October 22, 1902 Ponente: Ladd, J.

Facts: Maximo Abad was charged with violation of oath of allegiance when he denied to an officer of the United States Army the existence of certain rifles at the time of his surrender in April 1901 when in fact, he was aware of the existence and whereabouts of such rifles. Section 14 of Article 292 of the United States Philippine Commission states that: "Any person who shall have taken any oath before any military officer under the Civil Government of the Philippine Islands, whether such official so administering the oath was specially authorized by law so to do or not, in which oath the affiant is substance engaged to recognize or accept the supreme authority of the United States of America in these Islands or to maintain true faith and allegiance thereto or to obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by its duly constituted authorities and who shall, after the passage of this act, violate the terms and provisions of such oath or any of such terms or provisions, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both." Abad is a former insurgent officer and is entitled to the benefit of the proclamation of amnesty if the offense is one of those to which the proclamation applies. The denying of the whereabouts of the rifles can be considered an act of treason, as being an act of adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, the offense in this particular case might, perhaps, be held to be covered by the amnesty as being, in substance, treason though prosecuted under another name. Treason is defined in section 1 of Act No. 292 to consist in levying war against the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere. Sedition is defined in section 5 of the same act as the rising publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods certain enumerated objects of a political character. Issue: Whether or not the offense of violation of oaths of allegiance fall under the category of treason and sedition.

Held: Yes. Ratio:

The offense of violation of oaths of allegiance, being one of the political offenses defined in Act No. 292, is included in the general words "treason and sedition," as used in the amnesty proclamation of July 4, 1902.

The offenses listed in Act No. 292 include: treason, misprision of treason, insurrection, conspiracy to commit treason or insurrection, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious words and libels, the formation of secret political societies, and violation of oaths of allegiance. When the framer of the proclamation used the words "treason and sedition" to describe the purely political offenses covered by the amnesty, we think it was his intention, without specially enumerating the political offenses defined in Act No. 292, to include them all under the terms treason and sedition. Ruling: The defendant is entitled to the benefits of the proclamation of amnesty, and upon filing in the court the prescribed oath the cause will be returned to the court below with directions that he be discharged.

83 Phil 314 People vs. Perez G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949 Ponente: Tuason, J. Susano Perez was convicted of treason by the 5th Division of the People's Court sitting in Cebu City and sentenced to death by electrocution. Only five (1, 2, 4, 5, 6) out of seven counts of information were substantiated by the prosecution. Facts:

Count 1: Perez, with other Filipinos, recruited women girls and women against their will to satisfy the lust of Colonel Mini. The victims included Felina Laput, Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, Feliciana Bonalos and Flaviana Bonalos. Eriberta Ramo testified that on June 15, 1942, the accused came to her house to get her and told her that she was wanted in the house of her aunt, but instead, she was brought to the house of the Puppet Governor Agapito Hontanosas; that she escaped and returned to Baclayon her hometown; that the accused came again and told her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his Information Clerk; that she did not accept the job; that a week later the accused came to Baclayon to get her, and succeeded in taking some other girls Puppet Governor Agapito Hontanosas; that Governor Hontanosas told her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his wife; that when she was brought to Colonel Mini the latter had nothing on but a "G" string; that he, Colonel Mini threatened her with a sword tied her to a bed and with force succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her; that on the following night, again she was brought to Colonel Mini and again she was raped; that finally she was able to escape and stayed in hiding for three weeks and only came out from the hiding when Colonel Mini left Tagbilaran. Count 2: Perez, in company with some Japanese and Filipinos, took Eriberta Ramo and her sister Cleopatra Ramo from their home in Baclayon to attend a banquet and a dance organized in honor of Colonel Mini in order that Mini might select those who would later be taken to satisfy his lust. By means of threat, force and intimidation, the above mentioned two sisters were brought to the headquarters of the Japanese Commander at the Mission Hospital in Tagbilaran. Count 4: On July 16, 1942, Eduarda S. Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay, were taken from their homes in Corella, Bohol, by Perez and his companion named Vicente Bullecer, and delivered to the Japanese Officer, Dr. Takibayas to satisfy his lust,

but Perez and Bullecer raped the women first before bringing them to Takibayas. Perez raped Eduarda and Bullecer raped Eutiquia Lamay. Eduarda S. Daohog testified that while on the way to Tagbilaran, Perez through force and intimidation, raped her in an uninhabited house; that upon arriving in Tagbilaran, she was delivered to the Japanese Officer named Takibayas who also raped her. Eutiquia Lamay testified that on July 16, 1942, the accused and his companion, Bullecer, went to her house to take her and her sister; that her sister was then out of the house; that the accused threatened her with a revolver if she refuses to go; that she was placed in a car where Eduarda Daohog was; that while they were in the car, the accused carried Eduarda out of the car, and their companion Bullecer took Eutiquia Lamay; that later, she and Eduarda were taken to the Governor's house; that the accused and Bullecer brought the two girls to the Japanese headquarters; that Eduarda was raped by Takibayas and Eutiquia was raped by another Japanese. Count 5: On or about June 4, 1942, Perez commandeered Feliciana Bonalos and her sister Flaviana and that they were to be taken as witnesses before a Japanese Colonel in the investigation of a case against a certain Chinese (Insik Eping), and upon arriving at Tagbilaran, Bohol, the accused brought the two girls to the residence of Colonel Mini and by means of violence, threat and intimidation, Mini abused and had sexual intercourse with Flaviana Bonalos; that Perez followed in having carnal knowledge with Flaviana; that two days later, Perez brought Feliciana Bonalos to a secluded place in Tagbilaran, Bohol, and in the darkness, by means of threat and violence had carnal knowledge with her against her will. Count 6: Perez, together with his Filipino companion, apprehended Natividad Barcinas, Nicanora Ralameda and Teotima Barcinas, nurses of the provincial hospital, for not having attended a dance and reception organized in honor of Colonel Mini and other Japanese high ranking officers which was held in Tagbilaran market on June 25, 1942; that on July 8, 1942, said nurses were forced to attend another banquet and dance in order that the Japanese officers might make a selection which girls would suit best their fancy.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Perez in luring women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officials constitute treason. Held: No. Ratio:

As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies' hostile designs. His "commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor was not treason even though the women and the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit; he was not guilty any more than the women themselves would have been if they voluntarily and willingly had surrendered their bodies or organized the entertainment. Sexual and social relations with the

Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of the United State. Ruling: Perez is guilty of four counts of rape and sentenced for each of them to an indeterminate penalty of from 10 year of prision mayor to 17 year and 4 months of reclusion temporal. G.R. No. L-430 July 30, 1947 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO M. ABAD (alias PAQUITO) PERFECTO, J. FACTS: Accused Francisco Abad was found guilty of the complex crime of treason with homicide and sentenced to death, to pay a fine of P15,000, to indemnify the heirs of Osias Salvador in the amount of P2,000, and to pay costs. 1. December 24, 1943: as an informer and spy of the Japanese Army, join participate in a raid conducted by about fifteen Japanese soldiers of the Military Police at the house of Magno Ibarra, apprehended the said Magno Ibarra, charging him of possession of a revolver which had been previously surrendered by Magno Ibarra to the Japanese that Magno Ibarra still had the revolver. 2. March 11, 1944, caused the arrest and incarceration for more than two months, of one Mr. Francisco, for having remarked that the Americans would soon return many places in the Philippines had already been retaken. 3. September 28, 1944: forced, coerced, and compelled Osias Salvador and his two brothers to go to the Japanese garrison where in accuseds presence, were tortured as guerrilla suspects, and although Epifanio and Liberto Salvador managed later to escape from imprisonment, the said Osias Salvador was unable to do so and died. 4. November 12, 1844: handed over one Francisco Donato to the Japanese soldiers who slapped and kicked the said Donato, for an incident in which the accused was entirely to blame in that the said accused annoyed Flora Esteban, wife of Francisco Donato, by throwing sugar cane butts at her. The lower court found the accused guilty on the first three counts. ISSUES: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the first count. Defense maintains that only one witness testified to the overt act alleged therein. o HELD: Not guilty. o RATIO: Two witnesses were called by the prosecution to prove the first count, Magno Ibarra and his wife, Isabel. Appellant's going to the Ibarra house, in search of the

revolver (testimony of Isabel), is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellant's overt act in requiring Magno Ibarra, when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver (testimony of Magno). Although both overt acts are inter-related. it would be too much to strain the imagination if they should be identified as a single act or even as different manifestations, phases, or stage of the same overt act. Whether or not the arrest and incarceration of Francisco was caused by accused. Defense maintains that there could be other spies who heard Franciscos remarks. o HELD: Guilty. o RATIO: The fact that appellant caused the arrest of Francisco at the auditorium night dance, by pointing him as the man sought for to the Japanese soldiers who accompanied him and his brother Mariano, in itself alone is sufficient to find him guilty of adherence to the Japanese enemies and of giving them aid in the attainment of their was purposes. Whether or not the accused caused the arrest of Salvador brothers. Defense maintains that it was improbable for Liberato Salvador to have seen the accused making signs to Japs to arrest the Salvador brothers. o HELD: Guilty. o RATIO: It is satisfactorily explained by Liberato that "because a man wanted to by the Japanese begins to observe everything," he had to observe "because I knew they were making signs" In relation to the above, whether or not accused is responsible for the death of Osias Salvador. o HELD: Not responsible. o RATIO: It was the escape of Epifanio, and later the escape of Liberato, which must have enraged the Japanese to the extent of killing Osias Salvador, who, were not so weak, had the same chance as his brothers to escape. If his brothers did not escape, there is no ground to presume that Osias would have been killed by the Japanese if we take into consideration that, after almost two and a half months of confinement, the Japanese allowed Fausto Francisco to be released. There is absolutely no evidence that appellant was present or had anything to do with the killing of Osias Salvador. Whether or not the court erred in admitting evidence of supposed treasonable acts not specifically alleged in the information (referring to the gathering of info on the whereabouts of guerrilla army members and the shooting of Domingo) o HELD: Yes, the court erred. Not guilty. o RATIO: The fact that accused is described therein as an informer is not enough, because the description is a conclusion made by the author of the information based on the facts specifically alleged in the four counts. Also, the lower court erred in finding the facts proven when the testimony of has not been corroborated by any other witness, thus violating the two-witness rule in treason cases. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding accused as informer based on mere assertions of witnesses on charges not alleged in the information

o HELD: Yes, the trial court erred. Not guilty. o The pronouncement appears to be based on the testimonies of Publio Dumaual, Rafael Guillermo, and Agustin de la Cruz, each one of whom testified about facts not alleged in any of the counts of the information, and their testimonies on said facts appear not to be corroborated by another witness, as required by the two-witness rule. Whether or not the court erred in not appreciating 2 mitigating circumstances: the fact that the Abad family was persecuted by guerrillas, the persecution ending in the killing of Lino Abad Pine and Antonio Abad, father and brother, respectively, of the accused, and, appellant's age. o HELD: First circumstance not appreciated. Age is appreciated. o RATIO: The killing of the father and brother of accused is not considered to mitigate appellant's guilt as they are not of a similar nature or analogous to those mentioned in article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.Appellant's age can be considered. He was born on October 20, 1924, and when he committed the acts alleged in counts two and three, the latter on September 28, 1944, he was not yet 20 years old. The circumstances of this case justify crediting appellant with a mitigating circumstance of similar nature to that of number 2 of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Decision of the lower court modified (1 mitigating). Sentenced to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P5,000 and the costs. 76 Phil 415 Santos vs. Misa G.R. No. L-319, March 28, 1946 Ponente: Bengzon=, J. Facts:

Santos is a Chinese citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army, turned over last September, to the Commonwealth Government, and since then detained by the respondent as a political prisoner. He was detained due to active collaboration with the Japanese. Santos claims that the detention is illegal because he has not been charged before, nor convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because he may not be confined under Act. No. 682 because he does not owe allegiance to the US or the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The Solicitor-General declared that Santos may be charged for espionage, a crime against national security wherein allegiance is immaterial, and may, therefore, be held in custody under Commonwealth Act No. 682

Issue: Whether or not Santos is covered by Commonwealth Act No. 682. (With regard to detention of political prisoners) Held: Yes. Ratio: Section 19, Commonwealth Act No. 682: Upon delivery the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines of the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to the Commonwealth

Government, the Office of Special Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents, exhibits and such other things as the Government of the United States may have turned over in connection with and/or affecting said political prisoners, examine the aforesaid records, documents, exhibits, etc., and take, as speedily as possible, such action as may be proper: Provided, however, . . .. And, provided, further, That, in the interest of public security, the provisions of article one hundred twenty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be deemed, as they are hereby suspended, insofar as the aforesaid political prisoners are concerned, until the filing of the corresponding information with the People's Court, but the period of suspension shall not be than six (6) months from the formal delivery of said political prisoners by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines to the Commonwealth Government. Santos may be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender and considered as an offense against national security. Ruling: Petition denied.

Emerson - 78 Phil 566, 43 OG 28, 43 Phil 19 Crimes against National Security Treason People v. Alunan Peoples Court Criminal Case No. 3461 Feb. 27, 1947 - 43 OG 1288 Ponente: Leopoldo Rovira (NOTE: The decision was rendered in Spanish . Apparently the Peoples Court was the post-war court set up to try collaborators with the Japanese. Rafael Alunan served in the puppet Japanese government in the Philippines.) FACTS: Rafael R. Alunan was charged with treason before the Peoples Court for accepting and discharging official duties in the Philippine Executive Commission (the puppet government). Among these functions were: accepting and serving in the ff. positions: Minister of Agriculture and Commerce; Member of the Executive Council; Member of the Preparatory Commission on Philippine Independence which drafted the 1943 Constitution; Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources; participating in a gratitude mission to Tokyo; voting in favor of declaration of war against the Allied Powers; conferring with the Japanese emperor; and helping draft and circulate a Letter of Response which promised cooperation with the Japanese, among others. Alunan pleaded not guilty ISSUE: W/N Alunan is guilty of treason HELD: No. Motion to dismiss granted. RATIO: Although the witnesses have been able to prove Alunans participation in the puppet government, his acts were duties of a public position held under abnormal circumstances. Such acts cannot be considered as giving aid or comfort to the enemy. Mere acceptance of public office and performance of the duties of such offices under the Japanese puppet government do not constitute treason per se. Granting arguendo that Alunans acts did constitute giving aid or comfort to the enemy, he cannot be punished because his adherence to the enemy cause was not proven.

Diaz, J. concurring: (I put this in KASI ETO LANG YUNG ENGLISH ^^) 3 elements of treason: 1) allegiance of the accused; 2) treasonable adherence to the enemy 3) commission by the accused of an overt act giving OR at least tending aid and comfort to the enemy The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (Sychangco, Formoso, Silayan, and Javalera) do not establish intent on Alunans part to adhere to the enemy. They only establish certain overt acts committed by Alunan. For treasonous intent to be inferred from overt acts, there must be absolutely nothing in the proof of such overt acts which may negate the element of adherence. The same records which showed that Alunan indeed served in the puppet government also showed that Alunan was serving only out of necessity, and was more sympathetic to the Allied cause. (POSTSCRIPT: Almost none of the other high-ranking officials of the Japanese puppet govt were convicted.) Crimes against National Security Piracy - 78 Phil. 566 People v. Lol-lo and Saraw GR#17958 Feb. 27, 1922 Ponente: Malcolm, J. FACTS: Days after leaving Matuta, Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) on Jun. 30, 1920, two boats carrying 12 Dutch nationals (1 person in one boat, 11 men, women and children in another) were boarded by 24 armed Moros (including the accused Lol-lo and Saraw) at around 7:00 PM. The Moros took all the cargo from the Dutch. They also raped and abducted the two women on board. The Moros poked holes in the boat and left the rest of the Dutch in it (they were later rescued). The two women were able to escape once the Moros docked in the island of Maruro (also a Dutch possession). Lol-lo and Saraw were arrested after returning to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-tawi. They were charged w/ Piracy before the Sulu CFI and were found guilty, with punishment of life imprisonment; and to return the stolen 39 sacks of copra plus 924 rupees in damages, plus costs. ISSUES: 1) W/N the Sulu CFI has jurisdiction over the crime 2) W/N the defendants are guilty HELD: 1) Yes 2) Yes RATIO: 1) Piracy is a crime against all mankind. The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits, pirates being hostes humani generis (enemies of mankind). Piracy may be prosecuted in any court where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. 2) The provisions of the Spanish Penal Code on piracy (Arts. 153-154) remained in force after the American takeover, by virtue of Pres. McKinleys Instructions. Art. 154 specified that piracy with rape shall be punished by cadena perpetua to death. Lol-lo, who was proven to have taken part in the rape of the two women, should therefore be put to death - the crime being aggravated by cruelty, ignominy, and abuse of superior strength (rape of the women, abandonment of the other victims, 24 armed men vs. 12 men, women & children) with the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. DECISION: Judgment affirmed with respect to Saraw, modified with respect to Lol-lo. Crimes against National Security Treason - 43 Phil. 19 People v. Adriano GR#477 Jun 30, 1947 En Banc Ponente: Tuason, J.

FACTS: Appeal from decision of the Peoples Court sentencing Apolinario Adriano to life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 10,000 plus costs. Adriano was charged with treason for being a Makapili and for bearing arms and assisting the Japanese Army in its operations in the Gapan-San Leonardo Area from Jan.-Apr. 1945. The Peoples Court established that: Adriano was a Makapili; he performed sentry duties in the Japanese garrison in Gapan, Nueva Ecija; he carried a rifle in drills led by Japanese commanders; he surrendered to the Americans with rifle in hand. ISSUE: W/N Adriano is guilty of treason HELD/RATIO: No. The Philippine law on treason follows the two-witness test derived from the Anglo-American law on treason. This test requires the concurrence of two witnesses to an overt act of treason. In this case, each of the overt acts imputed to Adriano failed the test. Although mere membership in the Makapili organization is a treasonous act in itself (indicative of adherence and giving aid and comfort to the enemy), such membership is an overt act which should be proven by at least two witnesses. In this case, no two witnesses saw Adriano doing the same single act as a Makapili. Hilado, J. dissenting: Membership being a continuous and indivisible act, it is not necessary that two witnesses have ascertained that Adriano was a Makapili on the same day. The witnesses agree on the fact that Adriano is a Makapili, hence he should be convicted. Joan - 78 Phil 129, G.R. No. L-369 March 13, 1947 PEOPLE vs.CARMELITO VICTORIA Ponente: Perfecto, J. FACTS: Appellant was sentenced by the lower court to supreme penalty of death and fine of P20,000. His crime: Treason (in violation of duty of allegiance, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably did knowingly adhere to their enemy, the Empire of Japan and the Imperial Japanese Forces in the Philippines, with which the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were then at war, giving to said enemy aid and/or comfort) in the following events: 1. October 6, 1944: joined an armed enemy patrol composed of about 8 spies and a Japanese soldier, which went to the house of Federico Unson in Lucena, accused Unson of hiding guerrillas. But then, when the enemy was about to arrest Unson, guerrillas showed up and killed one of the spies. The Jap patrol left, but came back afternoon of the same day, arrested Unson and two others (Perez and Godoy), tortured them, and set fire to the house of Unson. Perez and Unson sustained numerous bayonet wounds mutilated and were found rotting in the vicinity of the house. Unson was tied to a tree, and disembowelled by several bayonet wounds, while Perez was mutilated and appeared ankle-less. Godoy was never heard of. It appears he was taken to Lucena and was killed there.

o Version of Defense: Although admitting his presence in the raid, he did not come along with party that conducted the afternoon raid in which the actual arrest of Unson, Perez and Godoy took place. o Lower courts decision: Guilty. Defense doesnt have enough weight to prevail over that of the prosecuting witnesses. 2. December 21, 1944: accompanied other Japanese spies to the house of Jose Unson, arrested said Jose Unson and brought him to the Japanese garrison on the charge that he had a short wave radio; that he was furnishing radio information to the guerrillas and at the same time supporting them; that said Unson was released on the same day, but on the next day he was again arrested and brought to the Japanese garrison at Lucena, Tayabas; that said Jose Unson never returned. The last that was seen of Jose Unson, was his skull as exhumed in a school yard in Lukban, several months after the arrest. o Defense: He admitted to have taken part in the raid but claims that he tried to save Unson. o Lower court: Only the latter (act of saving?) was accepted by the lower court, in view of appellant's behaviour as recalled by witnesses Mercedes Unson, Alejandro Unson, and Eugenio Ramon Unson. Guilty as well. 3. February 10, 1945: accompanied armed members of the Intelligence Unit of the Kempei Tai to the house of Felixberto Romulo in San Pablo, Laguna, placed him under arrest as a guerrilla suspect, and turned him over to the Japanese Military Police who on that occasion were concealing themselves near the house of Romulo; and that, since the arrest of said Romulo, nothing was heard of him. o Defense: Alibi - he was in Gagalagin, Manila. o Lower court: Guilty. 4. December 21, 1944 (5AM): accompanied two Japanese Military Police and two undercover operatives to the house of Hermogenes Calauag in Lucena, Tayabas, and apprehended said Calauag, conducted a search of the house and afterwards brought Calauag to the Japanese garrison where he was subjected to inhuman torture on the charge being pro-American and adviser of the Hunters ROTC Guerrillas. o Defense: He alleged that he was merely asked by the Japanese kempei to accompany them in the raid, admitted that he was present throughout the investigation and torture of Caluag who, according to the accused himself, was tied suspended in the air for fully twenty minutes. o Lower court: Guilty. Considered the account of the defense as corroborative of the facts alleged in the information and proved by the witnesses for the prosecution. 5. March 9, 1944 (5AM): acting as an informer of the Japanese Kempei Tai, caused the Japanese Military police to arrest and apprehend Antonio San Agustin, a guerrilla officer, who was thereupon brought to Fort Santiago and there torture and unlawfully detained. o Not proven. 6. June, 1944: accompanied by an armed group of undercover operatives to the house of Melecio Labalan, Sr., and arrested and brought him to the Japanese garrison in Lucena, Tayabas, where he was tortured on the charge of being a guerrilla. o Defendant: Feigned ignorance of the arrest. o Lower court: Guilty. Accused himself testified that he promised to see what he could do about Labalan and accepted three chickens from the latter's wife which he gave to the interpreter at the kempei office.

7. February, 1945: that as a member of the Ganap, a pro-Japanese party, he joined the Makapili organization designed to support the Imperial Japanese Forces in levying war against their enemies; that he took military training from the Japanese and bore arms and joined the enemy forces as a Makapili soldier, taking orders from the Japanese; that he participated in the raid and burning of the barrio of Bautista, San Pablo, Laguna, upon orders of the Japanese; that he carried ammunitions and foodstuffs for the Japanese Army; that he performed sentry duty o Not proven. In all of these instances, appellant maintains that he is not a spy, and was only forced to be one. He also claims to be a guerrilla and that he tried to help Filipino prisoners. Aggravating circumstances (lower court): treachery, the aid of armed persons to insure or afford impunity, and deliberately augmenting the crimes by causing other wrongs not necessary in the commission thereof. ISSUES: Whether or not the accused is guilty of counts 1,2,3,4 and 6 o If guilty, whether or not his act of saving some Filipinos justify or mitigate his criminal responsibility Whether or not the penalty should be death, considering the aggravating circumstances HELD: Guilty. RATIO: Appellants 130-page brief failed completely to point out any specific error in the conclusions of fact of the lower court, o The fact that he helped some Filipinos does not relieve him from criminal responsibility for the acts he had committed. The performance of righteous action, no matter how meritorious they may be is not a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance in the commission of wrongs. Sentence is reclusion perpetua. RATIO: The voters are divided as to what the sentence should be. Majority is of the opinion that the sentence should be death while the ponente is of the opinion that the circumstances in question are essential elements of the treason appellant has committed. There being no unanimity of all the members of the Court in the imposition of the death penalty, the People's Court's decision is modified, and appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P15,000 and costs. Franco - 79 Phil 283, 85 Phil 403, 95 Phil 475 85 Phil 403 People v Faustino Flores, People v Leon Gutierrez, People v Felipe Reyes (1950) Jan 31 1950

Facts: Faustino Flores, Leon Gutierrez, Felipe Reyes: charged with several counts of treason (2,2 and 5, respectively). Case concerns the second count, as they are acquitted of their other counts due to lack of proof. Dec 1 1944, Barrio Tipas, Taguig, Rizal: Accused lead Japanese troops into a zonification (rounding up the men suspected of being guerillas into an area, having makapilis point guerillas out, and torture or abduct them), arrest 276 men in the process, search houses in the area for supplies to gicve to the Japanese troops, load the 267 men into trucks which drove them to Pasig, from which they were never heard of again. Peoples Court finds the three guilty of treason.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the second account of treason. Whether or not the Zoning of Tipas constitutes one act of treason for the purposes of the rule that there should be testimonies from at least two witnesses.

Held/Ratio: No. Witnesses testimonies for each of the accused fail to disclose that they refer to the same act, therefore these are uncorroborated. This is a violation of the two-witness rule. No. Each of the acts of the accused must be supported by at least two witnesses, or each witness must testify to the whole act, in order for the rule to be complied with. 95 Phil 475 People v Ang Kio Cho Jul 29 1954 FACTS: Ang Kio Cho: charged with murder of Eduardo Diago and murder of Pedro Perlas Dec 30 1952: Ang Cho is a passenger in PAL flight PI-C-38 from Laoag to Aparri o Ang Cho shoots purser Diago o Ang Cho coerces pilot Perlas into changing course for Amoy, in China. When Perlas refuses, Ang Cho shoots him. Ang Cho pleads guilty to both cases. o 12 years prision mayor to 20 years reclusion temporal, plus indemnification of Diagos heirs for the first case o Reclusion perpetua for the second case Attorney General contends that the lower court committed errors in each of the two cases: o Aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be offset by plea of guilty; proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua o Crime charged should be the complex crime of grave coercion with murder; proper penalty should be death

 Supreme Court recognizes the error of the lower court in the first case, but rules that the claim on the second case is baseless, as the coercion committed was not essential to the act of murder. ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal made by the Attorney General concerning the first case has merit. HELD/RATIO: No. Placing upon the accused the risk of being given a higher penalty that what is imposed by the lower court, even if the lower court erroneously gives the wrong penalty, counts as double jeopardy. "No error, however, flagrant, committed by the court against the state, can be reserved by it for decision by the supreme court when the defendant has once been placed in jeopardy and discharged, even though the discharge was the result of the error committed. (note: argh Spanish case kasi so hindi masyadong clear yung ibang terms) 79 Phil 283 People v Pedro Marcaida Sept 18 1947 FACTS: Pedro Marcaida: charged with treason by the Peoples Court Marcaida alleges that the court erred in saying that his citizenship was sufficiently proven. Defense claims that Marcaida testified in Tagalog that he is taga-Lopez (in Tayabas, Quezon) and that he was born in Lopez, but there are no such details in the records. ISSUE: Whether or not Marcaida can be convicted of treason. HELD/RATIO: No. His citizenship is not sufficiently proven. The name Pedro Marcaida can be Filipino, Spanish of South American. No evidence of citizenship of parents means there is no way to ascertain whether or not he is a Filipino citizen, as he could be a descendant of Spanish subjects who chose to retain Spanish citizenship even after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, or even by South Americans who refused to go through the naturalization process. (note: argh isa pang Spanish case) Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa 77 Phil 856, G.R. No. L-409

January 30, 1947

DOCTRINE: Allegiance is either permanent or temporary. A Filipino citizen owes permanent allegiance to the Philippines while a resident alien owes a temporary allegiance to our country. Treason cannot be committed in time of peace. It is a war crime. While there is peace, there are no traitors. There must be a war in which the Philippines is involved. FACTS:

This is a resolution of the decision of the SC denying the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by Laurel. Anastacio Laurel was arrested by the US Army and was interned under a commitment order for collaborating with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation. He was turned over to the Commonwealth Government and since then has been under the custody of the respondent Director of Prisons. He filed an original action in the Supreme Court invoking the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He maintains that his arrest was illegal and in violation of his constitutional rights and that the Peoples Court Act 682 which suspends the application of the six-hour limitation on detention to political prisoners is unconstitutional. The SC court in its decision, denied his petition and rejected the petitioners contention mainly because no vested right was violated as the Act is not an ex-post facto law. Although the RPC was in effect during his arrest, he could not have asked for release after 6 hours as Gen. Douglas McArthur revived the laws of Commonwealth but held the active collaborationists in restraint for the duration of the war. Laurel, not discouraged, filed a motion and contends that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason because a) the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines, and consequently, the allegiance of Filipino citizens was suspended; b) there was a change of sovereignty over the Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic

ISSUES: a) Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines is suspended upon occupation b) Whether the occupation by an enemy suspends the allegiance of Filipino citizens to the sovereignty c) Whether the temporary allegiance by inhabitants of a territory to their occupants removes the permanent allegiance of a citizen to his legitimate government d) Whether political laws, such as crimes against national security, are suspended or inapplicable against the occupants e) Whether political laws, such as crimes against national security, are suspended or inapplicable against the inhabitants f) Whether the occupant may repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason

g) Whether there was a change of sovereignty of the Islands upon proclamation of the Republic and therefore petitioner can be released as treason was not committed against this sovereignty h) Whether petitioner can be granted the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus HELD/RATIO: a) No. Sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier but remains with the legitimate government. It cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof. What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy which passes temporarily to the occupant. b) No. A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his legitimate government and it cannot be transferred to the occupant. Moreover, sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during enemy occupation so the allegiance to the sovereign subsists and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance. c) No. The temporary allegiance of inhabitants to occupants is similar to temporary allegiance of a resident alien to the territory wherein he resides. In the same way that the citizen of a sovereign or government can be convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, the inhabitant of a territory occupied by military forces of an enemy may also commit treason against his own legitimate government. Allegiance is not merely the obedience to laws in return for a mans protection in his place of residence because by obeying said laws, he is not bound to obey the laws of his own government. d) Yes. With the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government, the authority to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant and political laws are suspended. They are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant because they exclusively bear relation to the legitimate government. Crimes against national security (of the legitimate government) such as treason as penalized by the RPC are also deemed suspended against the occupant because they cannot be committed against it. e) No. Treason is applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimate government because the inhabitants of the occupied territory are still bound by their allegiance to the latter during enemy occupation. f) No. This is not necessary to control the inhabitants and it is tantamount to practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the sovereign. If an inhabitant is compelled illegally, he can lawfully resist or submit without becoming a traitor. g) No. There is no change of sovereignty so the crime of treason committed during the Japanese occupation was committed against the same sovereign people and the same government.

h) No. He cannot be released. Perfecto, concurring: Treason is a war crime and cannot be committed during time of peace. Allegiance to the government was not suspended during the enemy occupation. 4 kinds: Natural, Acquired, Legal, Local. The idea of suspended sovereignty of suspended allegiance is incompatible with the Constitution which states that Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Hilado, concurring: Allegiance to citizens of the country to the legitimate government and US was not suspended during the Japanese occupation. Because of the Brian-Kellogg Pact in which Japan is an asignatory, the unjustifiable war is a crime committed by Japan; hence it is an illegal war. Dissent: During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were suspended. Thus, treason under the Revised Penal Code cannot be punishable where the laws of the land are momentarily halted. Regarding the change of sovereignty, it is true that the Philippines wasnt sovereign at the time of the Commonwealth since it was under the United States. Hence, the acts of treason done cannot carry over to the new Republic where the Philippines is now indeed sovereign. People v. Filemon Escleto 84 Phil 121, G.R. No. L-1006 June 28, 1949 Tuason, J. DOCTRINE: No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of 2 witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court. The 2-witness rule is severely restrictive. Each of the witnesses must testify to the whole overt act. FACTS:

This is an appeal from a judgement of the Peoples Court. March 11 1944: Japanese patrol with 17 men and 1 officer were ambushed and liquidated by guerillas in Bibito, Lopez, Tayabas (now Quezon) Residents of Bibito and neighboring barrios were arrested and others were ordered to report at the poblacion which included Antonio Conducto, a guerilla and former USAFFE, his wife, parents and relatives

Witnesses:

Sinforosa Mortero (Antonios mother): On March 18, 1944, at about 5PM, she and her family went to the poblacion from barrio Danlagan. Still in Danlagan, in

front of Filemon Escletos house, Escleto told them to stop and took down their names. With her were her daughter-in-law, Patricia Araya, her son Antonio Conductor, and three grandchildren. After writing their names, Escleto conducted them to the PC garrison in the poblacion where they were questioned by some whose name she did not know. This man asked her if she heard gunshots and she said yes but did not know where they were. The next day they were allowed to go home with many others, but Antonio Conducto was not released. Since then she had not seen her son. On cross-examination she said that when Escleto took down their names Antonio Conducto asked the accused if anything would happen to him and his family, and Escleto answered, Nothing will happen to you because I am to accompany you in going to town. Patricia Araya (Antonios wife): Filemon Escleto stopped them and took down their names; that after taking their names Escleto and the Philippine Constabulary soldier took them to the PC garrison; that her husband asked Escleto what would happen to him and his family, and Escleto said nothing and assured Conducto that he and his family would soon be allowed to go home; that Escleto presented them to a PC and she heard him tell the latter, This is Antonio Conducto who has firearm; that afterward they were sent upstairs and she did not know what happened to her husband. Filemon Escleto was charged in the Peoples Court with 3 counts of treason for: o going out with Japanese military in patrols in search of guerrillas and guerrilla hideouts, and of persons aiding or in sympathy with the resistance movements in the Philippines; bearing arms against the American men and guerrilla forces and mounting guard and performing guard duty for the Imperial Japanese Forces in their garrison in Lopez, Tayabas (now Quezon) o going out in patrols in search of guerillas o treasonably arrested or caused arrest of Antonio Conducto as a guerilla and turned him over to the Japanese authorities on Mar. 18, 1944 who has not been seen since then The Peoples Court dismissed the first 2 counts because no true overt act was established and there was no 2 witnesses to corroborate. However, the 3rd count was deemed fully substantiated.

ISSUES: 1) Whether Filemon Escleto is guilty of treason 2) Whether Escletos making note of persons who went to the poblacion is evidence of an overt act of treason 3) Whether Patricia Arayas testimony is availing as proof of an overt act of treason HELD: 1) NO. He is acquitted of the crime of treason. 2) NO. The only point of agreement between the 2 witnesses testimonies is that the accused took down the names of Conducto and of the witnesses and came along with them to the town. This does not show betrayal of Conducto because he may be merely doing his duties as lieutenant of the barrio. Also, it is not necessary to write down

Conductos name because Escleto can merely report him secretly. That there were spies with masks during the registration and that others were released further support the theory that Escleto was merely following orders in ordering them to write their names. 3) NO. The only damaging evidence is Arayas testimony that the accused told a Philippine Constabulary Soldier that the deceased has a firearm. However, the testimony was not shown to have been made for a treasonable purpose nor did it necessarily have that implication. In addition, this was not corroborated by another witness. *People vs. Adriano : The authors of the two-witness provision in the American Constitution, from which the Philippine treason law was taken, purposely made it severely restrictive and conviction for treason difficult. *Wigmore: Each of the witnesses must testify to the whole overt act; or if it is separable, there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act. *Learned Hand: It is necessary to produce two direct witnesses to the whole overt act. It may be possible to piece bits together of the same overt act; but, if so, each bit must have the support of two oaths;. *Cramer: The very minimum function that an overt act must perform in a treason prosecution is that it show sufficient action by the accused, in its setting, to sustain a finding that the accused actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Every action, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses.

Monching - 3 Phil 495, 6 Phil 581 3 Phil. 495 US v. Dalmacio Lagnason G.R. No. 1582, March 28, 1904 Ponente: Justice Willard Facts: Defendant charged under Act292 with treason, sentenced to death. When Americans occupied Negros Occidental, there were a band of men in arms against US government led by defendant. Their aim was to establish an independent government. On October 29, 1902, defendant with band attacked pueblo Murcia, driven off by Constabulary. Defendant captured. They carried no banners, but did carry two large wooden crosses which were captured, together with the cannon. Issue: Whether or not defendant is guilty. Held: Yes. Acts of violence committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of overthrowing the Government was levying war against the US, and therefore treason, regardless of number of men. No distinction made between foreign enemy and rebel or insurgent so far as act of levying is concerned. Levying of war had a definite meaning. That the acts committed by the defendant constituted a "levying of war" as that phrase was understood at the time the act of the Commission was passed, can not be doubted. Neither can it be doubted that these same acts constituted a "rebellion or insurrection" within the meaning of the third section of Act No. 292. The two sections can only be

reconciled in the manner employed in the case against Greathouse (a case mentioned), and that decision should be followed. If rebellion and insurrection are treason, a defendant can not be convicted under section 3 except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court. If they are not treason he could be convicted upon the testimony required in ordinary cases. The provisions as to two witnesses applied to prosecutions under the second section of the act of 1862. It is not necessary, however, to decide that question in this case, as the overt act of the defendant was proved by two witnesses; neither is it necessary to decide whether the omission in section 3 of the phrase "owing allegiance to the United States," which is found in section 1 taken in connection with section 17 of the act, makes a difference between the two sections in the case at bar the defendant was a native of Cebu and is therefore covered both by section 1 and section 3. In a case, an accused has been acquitted because no overt act of treason was proved, and in another there was acquittal because there were not two witnesses to the same overt act.

6 Phil 581 US v. Francisco Bautista G.R. No. L-2189, November 3, 1906 Ponente: Justice Carson Facts: Appellants convicted in CFI Manila of conspiracy to overthrow by force US government and PH government as defined in Act292. Francisco Bautista was sentenced with Aniceto de Guzman and Tomas Puzon to imprisonment with fine and hard labor. During latter 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by Filipino residents in HK for overthrowing the government by force of arms and establishing in its stead a government known as Republica Universal Democratica Filipina. Toward the end of 1903, Artemio Ricarte would come to Manila from Hong Kong and hold meetings to further the conspiracy hatched in HK, like for the plan to enlist a revolution army and raising money for it. The conspirators took to the field and offered armed resistance, only failing because of their failure to combat and of the failure of the people to rise en masse in response to their propaganda. Bautista, a Manila resident, was an intimate friend of Ricarte, notified by Ricarte of his coming to Manila, Bautista giving him money for the trip, present in meetings, held the people in readiness. Puzon distributed the bonds and appointed certain officials for the revolutionary forces. Puzon said he only acted to not vex his friend, that joking tone, that he did not know Ricarte was organizing a conspiracy. Issue: Whether or not appellants are guilty. Held: No. Puzon himself signed a written statement at the time he was arrested saying he was part of the new revolution presided over by Ricarte, that he was brigadier-general, chief of signal corps since they were childhood friends. Puzon did not deny this statement. His confession was clear and in no way supports his pretense that he was excited as not to know what he was saying when he made it. The accused voluntarily accepted the appointment and in doing so assumed all obligations implied by such acceptance. Mere possession of such an appointment, when it is not shown that the possessor executed

some external act by the virtue of the same, does not constitute sufficient proof of the guilt of the defendant," applies only the case of Enrique Camonas, against whom the only evidence of record was the fact that a so-called appointment of sergeant was found at his house. It may be the case that conspirators may send appoints to an unsuspecting person in the hope that such person would accept it, and the person is entirely innocent of all intention to join. A genuine conspiracy must be shown to exist, and it must be proven that accused voluntarily accepted the appointment. The twowitness rule cannot apply in proving conspiracy to commit treason, only in treason. Aniceto de Guzman cannot be convicted on his acceptance of a number of bonds from conspirators. It does not mean he knew about the conspiracy, receiving the wrapped bonds not knowing what they were, then destroying them thereafter. Patty - 83 Phil 1, 4 Phil 350 People Of The Philippines Vs. Gaudencio Roble Tuason, J.; March 2, 1949 G.R. No. L-433 FACTS: On March 20, 1944, in Dumagete, Cebu, Gaudencio Robles, as a member of the Philippines Constabulary lead 10 other pro-Jap constabulary, all of them armed, to arrest Paulino Osorio for helping guerillas, whom they maltreated and detained in the municipal jail of Dumagete. On the same day, the same group arrested Melchor Campomanes and 7 other people and tortured them for supporting and sympathizing with the guerillas. Robles then shot Campomanes, killing him. Someday after, Robles again lead other constabulary officers to arrest Fortunato Linares and others in Dalaguete, Cebu. Robles cut their ears and tortured them severely that Antolin Rodriguez died as a result. Then on May 18, 1944, Robles again lead a group of constabulary officers to Mambaling and other areas in Cebu City to arrest Eleuterio Padilla for being a guerilla. The group tortured and detained him before he was killed by Roble on May 26. Roble was caught and charged with 3 counts of treason. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death by the First Division of the People's Court sitting in Tacloban, Leyte. Issues: Whether or not the penalty of death was correct. Held: No. Decision was modified and sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua The trial court erred in stating that it was a complex crime of treason with murders. The torture and murders he committed formed part of treason.

Ratio:

 Treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength are circumstances inherent in treason and are not aggravating. Ignominy (torture) is an aggravating circumstance. Plea of guilt is also taken into consideration. United States Vs. Apolonio Caballeros Mapa, J.; March 29, 1905 G.R. No. 1352 FACTS: Roberto Baculi was in his banana plantation gathering bananas when he heard some shots fired. He tried to run, but was seen by Damaso and Isidro, leaders of the band who fired the shots and striking him with the butts of their guns, forced him to bury the victims: four American school teachers shot to death. Apolonio Caballeros and Baculi was then arrested for the crime. The two confessed their guilt and was sentenced to seven years of presidio mayor as accessories. Issues: Held: Ratio: Baculi is exempt from liability for he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force since he was under threat by the band. As for Caballeros, ther was no proof of his participation in any way to the crime charged. Witnesses confirm that he was not even in the place where the burial took place. Covarrubias, a witness, said that his confession of guilt was made through a promise that nothing will be done to them. Under such circumstance, the confession cannot be accepted as proof on trial, for it was not made freely and voluntarily. Their failure to report the crime to the authorities is not a crime punishable by the RPC. G.R. No. L-57292 February 18, 1986 The People Of The Philippines vs. Julaide Siyoh, Omar-Kayam Kiram, Namli Indanan & Andaw Jamahali, ABAD SANTOS, J.: FACTS: Siyoh, Kiram, Indanan and Jamahali were accused of qualified piracy with triple murder and frustrated murder. On July 14, 1979, accused fired their guns into the air and stopped the pumpboat wherein de Castro, Hiloen and 2 de Guzmans were riding, boarded the said pumpboat and took, stole and carried away all their cash money, wrist watches, stereo sets, merchandise and other personal belongings amounting to the total Whether or not the penalty was correct. No. Decision reversed and defendants acquitted.

amount of P 18,342.00, Philippine Currency, ordered them to jump into the water, whereupon, the said accused, fired their guns at them which caused the death of de Castro and one de Guzman while wounding the other de Guzman. It appears that Siyoh and Kiram were with the victims, also selling their goods, before the incident happened. Lower court decision: Sentenced to DEATH. However, considering the provision of Section 106 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu, the illiteracy or ignorance or extreme poverty of the accused who are members of the cultural minorities, under a regime of so called compassionate society, a commutation to life imprisonment is recommended. ISSUE: Whether or not Siyoh and Kiram are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering the credibility of the witness HELD: Yes, they are guilty BRD. RATIO: Appellants contentions are unconvincing: 1. That if they were the culprits they could have easily robbed their victims at the Kiram house or on any of the occasions when they were travelling together. Suffice it to say that robbing the victims at Kiram's house would make Kiram and his family immediately suspect and robbing the victims before they had sold all their goods would be premature. However, robbing and killing the victims while at sea and after they had sold all their goods was both timely and provided safety from prying eyes. 2. That the accused immediately reported the incident to the PC. The record does not support this assertion. 3. That the affidavits of Dolores de Guzman, wife of the deceased Anastacio de Guzman, and Primitiva de Castro, wife of the deceased Rodolfo de Castro, state that Antonio de Guzman informed them shortly after the incident that their husbands were killed by the companions of Siyoh and Kiram. The thrust of the appellants' claim, therefore, is that Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were the killers and not the former. But this claim is baseless in the face of the proven conspiracy among the accused. 4. That there is no evidence Anastacio de Guzman was killed together with Rodolfo de Castro and Danilo Hiolen because his remains were never recovered. There is no reason to suppose that Anastacio de Guzman is still alive or that he died in a manner different from his companions. The incident took place on July 14, 1979 and when the trial court decided the case on June 8, 1981 Anastacio de Guzman was still missing. But the number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable by death regardless of the number of victims. 5. That the death certificates are vague as to the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims; were they hacked wounds or gunshot wounds? The cause is consistent with the

testimony of Antonio de Guzman that the victims were hacked; that the appellants were armed with "barongs" while Indanan and Jamahali were armed with armalites. Decision affirmed with the following modifications: (a) for lack of necessary votes the penalty imposed shall be reclusion perpetua; and (b) each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00. No special pronouncement as to costs.