Criminal Law 2 Digests: TREASON

LAUREL V. MISA
FACTS:
A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio Laurel. He claims 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 for the reasons that the sovereignty of the legitimate government
in the Philippines and consequently the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizen thereto were then
suspended; and that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the
Philippine Republic.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES
SUSPENDED DURING OCCUPATION
HELD:
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. It
remains vested in the legitimate government.
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. The political laws which
prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and citizens, are suspended in
abeyance during military occupation.
DISSENT:
During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were suspended.
This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international law adopted by our
Constitution [ Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.
The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of the
invading power whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of displaced
government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from the inhabit ants
such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the maintenance of the law and
order, and for the proper administration of the country.
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
FACTS:
-Susano Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason and was sentenced to death by electrocution.

-TC found the accused, together with the other Filipinos, recruited, apprehended and commandeered
numerous girls and women against their will for the purpose of using them, to satisfy the sexual desire
of the Japanese officers.
-The Solicitor General submitted an opposite view stating that the deeds committed by the accused do
not constitute treason. It further discussed that if furnishing women for immoral purposes to the
enemies was treason because womens company kept up their morale, so fraternizing them,
entertaining them at parties, selling them food and drinks, and kindred acts, would be treason . Any
act of hospitality produces the same result.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused constituted the crime of treason.
HELD: NO. The law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and political intercourse
between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. What aid and comfort
constitute treason must depend upon their nature degree and purpose.
As a 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 helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit.
Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war
efforts or to weaken the power of US. Whatever favorable effect the defendants collaboration with
the Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war was trivial, imperceptible, and unintentional.
Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which, in the absence of admission,
may be gathered from the nature and circumstance of each particular case.
But the accused may be punished for the rape as principal by direct participation. Without his
coordination in the manner above stated, these rapes could not have been committed.
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
FACTS:
-The appellant was prosecuted for treason.
-Two witnesses gave evidence but their statements do not coincide in any single detail. The first
witness testified that the accused with other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers caught an
American aviator and had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled by a carabao. That
on the way, the accused walked behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the sled was faster than the
airplane; that the American was taken to the Kempetai headquarters, after which he did not know
what happened to the flier.
-The next witness, testified that he saw the accused following an American and the accused were
Japanese and other Filipinos.

-The lower court believes that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of treason
complexed by murder and physical injuries, with the aggravating circumstances mentioned above.
Apparently, the court has regarded the murders and physical injuries charged in the information, not
only as crimes distinct from treason but also as modifying circumstances. The Solicitor General agrees
with the decision except as to the technical designation of the crime. In his opinion, the offense
committed by the appellant is a complex crime of treason with homicide.
-Accused being a member of the Japanese Military Police and acting as undercover man for the
Japanese forces with the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid and comfort feloniously and
treasonably lad, guide and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers for the
purpose of apprehending guerillas and locating their hideouts.
ISSUES;
1.
2.

Whether the two-witness rule was sufficiently complied.

Whether the TC erred in ruling that the murders and physical injuries were crimes distinct from
treason.
HELD:

1.

NO, it was not sufficiently complied. The witnesses evidently referred to two different occasions. The
two witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any part of it.

2.

The execution of some of the guerilla suspects mentioned and the infliction of physical injuries on
others are not offenses separate from treason. There must concur both adherence to the enemy and
giving him aid and comfort. One without the other does not make treason.
In the nature of things, the giving aid and comfort can only be accomplished by some kind of action. Its
very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation. This deed or
physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or
provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes identified with the
latter crime and cannot be the subject of a separate punishment.
However, the brutality with the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as an
aggravating circumstances. Thus, the use of torture and other atrocities on the victims instead of the
usual and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to increase the penalty.
PEOPLE V. MANAYAO
FACTS:
-Appellant Pedro Manayao was among those who were charged with the aggravating circumstances of
1.) the aid of armed men and 2.) the employment or presence of a band in the commission of the
crime, he was sentenced to death.
-The guerrillas raided the Japanese in Angat, Bulacan. In reprised, Japanese soldiers and a number of
Filipinos affiliated with the Makapili, among them the instant appellant, conceived the diabolical idea
of killing the residents. Appellant killed six women.

-Appellants counsel contends that appellant was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan, was subject
to military law, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Peoples Court. Appellant had lost his
Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of treason.
-He further contends certain provisions of CA 63 states that:
A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events.
-By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon
attaining twenty-one years of age or more.
-By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country.
-By having been declared, by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine Army, Navy, or Air Corps
in time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of treason
HELD: Yes, the appellant was found guilty of the crime of treason.
The Makapili, although organized to render military aid to the Japanese Army in the Philippines during
the late war, was not a part of said army. It was an organization of Filipino traitors.
There is no evidence that appellant has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution
or laes of Japan.
The members of the Makapili could have sworn to help Japan in the war without necessarily swearing
to support her constitution and the laws.
Neither was there any showing too that they have lost their citizenship in connection with the
provisions stated in CA 63. No person even when he has renounced or incurred the loss of his
nationality, shall take up arms against his native country; he shall be held guilty of felony and treason,
of he does not strictly observe this duty.
As to appellants contention that he only acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior and is
therefore exempt from criminal, liability, because he allegedly acted in the fulfillment of a duty
incidental to his service for Japan as a member of the Makapili. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 11 of RPC
states that compliance with duties to or orders from a foreign sovereign is considered an illegal order.
The contention that as a member of the Makapili appellant had to obey his Japanese masters under
pain of severe penalty, and that therefore his acts should be considered as committed under the
impulse of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Appellant joined the
Makapili with the full knowledge of its avowed purpose of rendering military aid to Japan. He knew the
consequences to be expected- if the alleged irresistible force or uncontrollable fear subsequently
arose, he brought them about himself freely and voluntarily.

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 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 or the country with which his was at war.
SC set aside the judgment of the SC.

DISSENT:
Being a member of the Makapili during the Japanese occupation of those areas of the Philippines
referred to in the information, was one single, continuous, and indivisible overt act of the present
accused whereby he gave aid and comfort to the Japanese invaders.
The fact that he was seen on a certain day by one of the state witnesses being a member of the
Makapili, and was seen by another state witness but on a different day being a member of the same
organization, does not mean that his membership on the first day was different or independent from
his membership on the other day.