You are on page 1of 11

THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 114
Treason

People vs. Marcaida
79 Phil. 283, G.R. No. L-953, September 18, 1947

FACTS: The case is an appeal by Pedro Marcaida, who was convicted of the crime of treason. He points out three errors incurred by the Court of
Pueblo, one of which is that his citizenship was sufficiently tested. The defense contends that the evidence of record does not prove citizenship.
The defense argues that the witness testified in Tagalog saying, "Taga Lopez", referring to Lopez, Quezon Province, and that he was born in
Lopez. However, no such thing is found in the record, therefore, his Philippine citizenship is not properly tested.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant shall be convicted of treason

HELD: No. The defendant then, according to the evidence of record, may be a Filipino or a foreigner. His Philippine citizenship is not sufficiently
tested or proven. The defendant is called Pedro Marcaida. By his name, he can be a Filipino, Spanish or South American. There is no proof of the
citizenship of his parents. He can be a descendant of Spanish subjects who opted to remain Spanish and retain their loyalty to the Crown of
Spain, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. It may also happen that he is a descendant of a South American, with his father
refusing to use the provisions of the naturalization law, thereby acquiring the nationality of his father. Certainly, his citizenship cannot be
ascertained. Foreigners owe allegiance to the government of America during the time of the defendant's residence. Furthermore, Article 114 of
The Revised Penal Code, which reads "Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or
comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere...", is guilty of treason, has excluded the foreign nationals in its scope. However, Executive Order No.
44, recognizing that it was not possible under the Revised Penal Code to punish foreign residents in the Philippines that have helped the
enemies, for the crime of treason, amended Article 114, by adding the paragraph, "Likewise, any alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who
commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this article shall be punished..." But in the case at bar, the events took place in 1944, a year
before Executive Order No. 44 has taken effect on May 31, 1945. If the defendant is Filipino, owing allegiance to the Commonwealth
Government, he must be condemned for treason, but if he is a foreigner, he cannot be punished for acts committed prior to the amendment of
Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. As the evidence clearly established that the defendant is either Filipino or a foreigner, he cannot be
criminally responsible for the crime of treason.

RATIO: Under the first paragraph of Article 114, the offender in treason must be a Filipino citizen, as he should not be a foreigner. Before Article
114 was amended by Executive Order No. 44, it was not possible under the Revised Penal Code to punish for treason, resident aliens who aided
the enemies. Now, as amended, the Revised Penal Code punishes a resident alien who commits treason.

---
THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 114
Treason

Laurel vs. Misa
77 Phil. 856, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947

FACTS: The Court, acting on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to
the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and
penalized by Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over
these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic. He was arrested by the United States Army and was interned under a
commitment order for collaborating with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation and since then was turned over to the Commonwealth
Government under the custody of the Director of Prisons, thereafter filing 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. The Supreme Court, in its resolution,
denied his petition and rejected his contention.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines is suspended during occupation
2) Whether or not the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens to their legitimate government or sovereign is abrogated by the enemy
occupation
3) Whether or not the temporary allegiance borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy toward the government
established over them abolishes the absolute and permanent allegiance an inhabitant owes to his legitimate government
4) Whether or not crimes against national security, such as treason and espionage, are suspended during occupation
5) Whether or not the defendant is liable for treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code
6) Whether or not the occupant has the power to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason
7) Whether or not the change of the form of government from Commonwealth to Republic affect the prosecution of those charged with
the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth

HELD:

1) No. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government or
sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not
transferred thereby to the occupier, and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate
THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which governs a body politic or society
which constitute the state) must be distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed
and transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out
of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the
exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the
occupant.

2) No. As a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance
of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance.

3) No. Temporary allegiance to the enemy occupants government, is considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner
owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives, and does not do away
with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign;
that just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign
country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own
legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort; and that if the allegiance
of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its laws in return for the protection he receives,
it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreign country or state would, on one hand, ipso facto acquire the citizenship
thereof since he has enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life, in return for the protection he receives, and
would, on the other hand, lose his original citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws of his own government
or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign country, the protection he is entitled to in his own.

4) Yes. Same with political laws, which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and citizens, crimes against
national security, such as treason and espionage which are of political complexion because they bear relation to, and are penalized by
our Revised Penal Code as crimes against the legitimate government, are also suspended or become inapplicable as against the
occupant, because they cannot be committed against the latter.

5) Yes. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, 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 the enemy
occupation.

6) No. Since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or
sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving
the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation
THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

of the law of treason, essential for the preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimate government, or compel
them to adhere and give aid and comfort to him.

7) No. The change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the
crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign
people.

RATIO: Allegiance as an element of treason seems to be either permanent or temporary. Permanent allegiance consists in the obligation of
fidelity and obedience which a citizen or subject owes to his government or sovereign. Temporary allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and
obedience which a resident alien owes to our government. This justifies Executive Order No. 44, amending Article 114. The defense of suspended
allegiance and change of sovereignty is not accepted because a citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his Government. The
sovereignty of the Government is not transferred to the enemy by mere occupation. The subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during the war is one of the rules of International Law; and what is
suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty.

---


















THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 114
Treason

People vs. Mangahas
93 Phil. 1113, G.R. Nos. L-5367 & L-5368, June 9, 1953

FACTS: On December 13, 1944, Makapilis raided Lawang, Norzagaray, and apprehended several guerilla members. The Makapilis also stationed
themselves in front of the municipal building. Among them were Cayetano and Mariano Mangahas, with which they surrounded the house of
Enriqueta de la Merced, went up and took and brought to the garrison of the Makapilis near the municipal building foodstuffs intended for the
guerillas, consisting of 5 sacks of rice, 2 cans of salted beef, a basketful of camote and another of tomatoes, a small bag of salt and a half sack of
sardines, salmon and corned beef. Enriqueta de la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz testified to the foregoing overt acts. On December 29, 1944, a
group of armed Makapilis, among whom were the defendants, took and carried away rice, shoes, helmet, clothes and anything they could get
hold in the house of Primo S. Cruz and at the same time apprehended him and brought him to the San Jose garrison where Japanese soldiers
were stationed and since then Cruz has not returned and has not been seen. A similar tragedy befell Artemio Nicolas, who was tied up and
brought to the San Jose garrison by the defendants. Each of their wives testified to each of the arrests of their respective husbands. On
December 30, 1944, Moises Legaspi was brought to the garrison of the Makapilis by five persons, among whom were the defendants. His wife
and son testified to the foregoing acts. Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas were charged with treason at the Court of First
Instance in Bulacan. Both the defendants have appealed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crime of treason

HELD: Yes. The arrest of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas cannot be deemed sufficient to constitute treason for lack of two witnesses, because
the arrest of both persons is established only by the testimony of their widows, to each, respectively. Nevertheless, it is a proof of adherence to
the enemy. However, there is no merit in the argument that because there is no evidence that the defendants acted as informers or that they
were responsible for the arrest of Moises Legaspi, the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for treason. There is no doubt that the
defendants were present when they arrested Moises Legaspi at his house. A mere denial by Cayetano Mangahas that he was with those who
arrested Moises Legaspi is not sufficient to outweigh the testimony of the latter's wife and son who pointed to the defendants as among the five
Makapilis who apprehended Moises Legaspi. The claim that there is no proof of adherence to the enemy is without merit. The acts of arresting
guerillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around town carrying firearms, are more than sufficient
proofs of adherence to the enemy. Moreover, Cayetano Mangahas' testimony that he was not present when the house of Enriqueta de la
Merced was raided, cannot prevail over the testimony of the latter and Engracia de la Cruz who on that occasion saw the defendants among the
raiders. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed by the Supreme Court.

THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

RATIO: Giving information to or commandeering foodstuffs for, the enemy is evidence of both adherence and aid or comfort. The defendants act
of commandeering foodstuffs for the Japanese soldiers is sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy. The phrase adherence to enemy means
intent to betray. There is adherence to the enemy when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or
convictions disloyal to his countrys policy or interest.

---




























THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 114
Treason

People vs. Villanueva
92 Phil. 637, G.R. No. L-5838, February 9, 1953

FACTS: At about midnight of December 24, 1944, the defendant accompanied eight or nine Japanese soldiers to the place where Pablo
Parungao, Eugenio Maliwat and Jose Maliwat were doing guard duty as members of the neighborhood association in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. The
Japanese soldiers arrested Jose Maliwat and carried him away. They came back and also arrested Pablo Parungao. Parungao and Maliwat were
taken to the Japanese garrison in the poblacion of Talavera, where they were detained for forty-eight hours until they were released upon
request of the Mayor of Talavera, Jose B. David. In said garrison two other persons, Manuel Corpus and Francisco Payoyo were already detained.
This fact was testified to by Pablo Parungao and Eugenio Maliwat, brother of Jose. Late in December, 1944, the appellant formed a unit of the
"Makapili" organization, with himself as chief, with the rank of captain. Said unit was engaged in patrolling the town and looking for guerrillas
and persons suspected of helping the underground movement against the Japanese. Some of the members were wearing uniforms similar to
those used by the Japanese soldiers and arm bands with Japanese characters which, according to the Japanese commander, were the symbol of
membership in the "Makapili" organization, and those wearing said arm bands were entitled to the respect and protection of the local
authorities, and the people were obliged to bow to them. At the time of the arrest of the Filipino guards, the defendant was wearing said arm
band. These facts were testified to by the Mayor and other witnesses for the prosecution. The defendant testified in his own behalf to the effect
that he was the head of the "Ganap", a religious organization in Talavera, where they had a temple; that he moved to Cabanatuan in order to
escape from the Japanese, staying there from June 12, 1942 to January 6, 1945, engaged in the business of a tinsmith; and that he never took
part in the arrest of any person.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the defendant constitute treason

HELD: Yes. The trial court did not give credence to this testimony of the defendant which consisted of a mere denial of the charges, nor did it
give any weight to his alleged alibi. Inasmuch as it has not been established by the prosecution that the appellant participated directly or
indirectly in the killing or disappearance of any person, the judgment appealed from should not be modified.

RATIO: Being a Makapili constitutes an overt act of psychological comfort. It is in itself constitutive of an overt act. The crime of treason was
committed if he placed himself at the enemys 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 of the country with which he was at war. It furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced,
his forces augmented, and his courage was enhanced by the knowledge that he could count on men such as the accused and his kind who were
ready to strike at their own people. The practical effect of it was no different from that of enlisting in the invaders army.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 114
Treason

People vs. Escleto
84 Phil. 121, G.R. No. L-1006, June 28, 1949

FACTS: On March 11, 1944, Japanese patrol composed of seventeen men and one officer was ambushed and totally liquidated by guerrillas in
barrio Bibito, Lopez, Province of Tayabas, now Quezon. As a result, some of inhabitants of Bibito and neighboring barrios, numbering several
hundred, were arrested and others were ordered to report at the poblacion. Among the latter were Antonio Conducto, a guerrilla and former
USAFFE, Conducto's wife, parents and other relatives. Sinforosa Mortero, 40 years old, testified that on March 18, 1944, as obedience to the
Japanese order, she and the rest of her family went to the town from barrio Danlagan. Still in Danlagan, in front of Filemon Escleto's 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 declared that before reaching
the town, Filemon Escleto stopped her, her mother-in-law, her husband, her three children, her brother-in-law and the latter's wife 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 the charged in the former
People's Court with treason since he wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably arrest and/or cause to be arrested Antonio Conducto as a
guerrilla and did turn him over and deliver to the Japanese military authorities in their garrison, since which time, nothing has been heard from
said Antonio Conducto and is considered by his family to have been killed by the Japanese military authorities.

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonies of the witnesses are evidences of an overt act of treason

HELD: No. It will readily be seen from a cursory examination thereof that the only point on which the two witnesses, Patricia Araya and Sinforosa
Mortero, agree is that the accused took down the names of Conducto and of the witnesses, among others, and came along with them to the
town. Granting the veracity of this statement, it does not warrant the inference that the defendant betrayed Conducto or had the intention of
doing so. What he allegedly did was compatible with the hypothesis that, being lieutenant of his barrio, he thought it convenient as part of his
duty to make a list of the people under his jurisdiction who heeded the Japanese order. It was not necessary for the defendant to write
Conducto's name in order to report on him. The two men appeared to be from the same barrio, Escleto knew Conducto intimately, and the
THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

latter was on his way to town to present himself. If the accused had a treasonable intent against Conducto, he could have furnished his name
and identity to the enemy by word of mouth. This step would have the added advantage of concealing the defendant's traitorous action from his
town mates and of not appraising Conducto of what was in store for him, knowledge of which might impel Conducto to escape. The list was not
used for the purpose assumed by the prosecution is best demonstrated by the fact that it included, according to witnesses, Conducto's wife and
parents and many others who were discharged the next day. The fact that, according to the evidence of the prosecution, spies wearing masks
were utilized in the screening of guerrillas adds to the doubt that the defendant had a hand in Conducto's misfortune. In short, Escleto's making
note of persons who went to the poblacion as evidence of overt act is weak, vague and uncertain. The only evidence against the appellant that
might be considered direct and damaging is Patricia Araya's testimony that Escleto told a Philippine Constabulary soldier, "This is Antonio
Conducto who has firearm." But the prosecution did not elaborate on this testimony, nor was any other witness made to corroborate it although
Patricia Araya was with her husband, parents and relatives who would have heard the statement if the defendant had uttered it. Leaving aside
the question of Patricia's veracity, the failure to corroborate her testimony just mentioned makes it ineffective and unavailing as proof of an
overt act of treason. In a juridical sense, this testimony is inoperative as a corroboration of the defendant's taking down of the name of
Conducto and others, or vice-versa. It has been seen that the testimony was not shown to have been made for a treasonable purpose nor did it
necessarily have that implication. Filemon Escleto was then acquitted of treason.

RATIO: 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. 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.


---













THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

Article 123
Qualified Piracy

People vs. Siyoh
141 SCRA 356, G.R. No. L-57292, February 18, 1986

FACTS: On 14th day of July, 1979, in the Province of Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, being strangers and without lawful authority,
armed with firearms and taking advantage of their superior strength, conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one with the
other, with intent to gain and by the use of violence or intimidation against persons and force upon things, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, fire their guns into the air and stop the pump boat wherein Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen, Anastacio de Guzman
and Antonio de Guzman were riding, traveling at that time from the island of Baluk-Baluk towards Pilas, boarded the said pump boat and take,
steal and carry away all their cash money, wrist watches, stereo sets, merchandise and other personal belongings amounting to the total amount
of P 18,342.00, Philippine Currency; that the said accused, on the occasion of the crime herein above-described, taking advantage that the said
victims were at their mercy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, ordered them to jump into the water,
whereupon, the said accused, fired their guns at them which caused the death of Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen, Anastacio de Guzman and
wounding one Antonio de Guzman; thus the accused have performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of
Qualified Piracy with Quadruple Murder, but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reasons of causes in dependent of their will, that is, said
Antonio de Guzman was able to swim to the shore and hid himself, and due to the timely medical assistance rendered to said victim, Antonio de
Guzman which prevented his death. The Court found the accused Omar-kayam Kiram and Julaide Siyoh guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and Frustrated Murder as defined and penalized under the provision of Presidential Decree No. 532,
and hereby sentenced each one of them to suffer the supreme penalty of death. From the evidences gathered, it also appeared that the
defendants were with the victims, helping them to sell the latters merchandise. 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 was recommended.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt considering the credibility of the witness Antonio de Guzman

HELD: Yes. 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. No evidence was presented and nothing can be inferred from the evidence of
the defense so far presented showing reason why the lone survivor should pervert the truth or fabricate or manufacture such heinous crime as
qualified piracy with triple murders and frustrated murder? Despite the defendants contention 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 REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW II CASES AND DOCTRINES, Arellano University School of Law aiza ebina/2014

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. The decision of the lower court was then affirmed with
modifications for lack of necessary votes the penalty imposed shall be reclusion perpetua.

RATIO: Qualified piracy is a special complex crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, regardless of the number of the victims. 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. (Note:
Qualified piracy is now punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.)

---