Republic of the Philippines

People's court
First Division
[Criminal Case No. 3461 for treason]
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff, vs. Rafael R. Alunan,
accused
ORDER
Performed after the prosecution evidence, the defense filed motion to
dismiss, on the ground that the evidence was sufficient for a
conviction.
The prosecution opposed the request. Both parties filed memoranda
in support of their respective claims.
It accuses Rafael R. Alunan, the crime of treason, alleging in the
complaint that the accused being a Filipino and owing allegiance to
the United States of America and the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, andthe attempt to make common
cause with the enemy, the Empire of Japan, and his forces, and
intentionally voluntary help and give help to the enemy within the
jurisdiction of this court, formulating specific charges, among which,
in summary, the main are:
The accused took part in the preparation, execution and delivery of
the "Letter of Response" for accepting the appointment of
Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce under the regime of the
so-called Philippine Executive Commission and the performance of
the duties and functions of that office, the acceptance by the defendant
of the post of Member of the State Council and performance of their
duties as such, for the signing and publication of the "Manifesto"
signed by the accused also on appeal to the people; for acting as a
member of the Preparatory Commission for Philippine Independence,
the Constitution's treaty signed by the Republic of the Philippines, in
the acceptance by the defendant of the Minister of Agriculture and
Natural Resources under the regime of the Republic of the
Philippines, Vargo said oath taken and played the same, for taking
part in the mission of Gratitude sent to Tokyo, Japan, to have voted in
the declaration of war against the United States of America and Great
Britain, for making speeches and sent messages concerning the
pacification campaign, as well as in certain official conventions which
urge for peace and order and cooperation with the invaders, and

finally, to accept a decoration that was graciously granted by the

Emperor of Japan.
The accused pleaded not guilty and admitted frankly and plainly have
always kept to the present his Filipino citizenship.
Turns out the January 2, 1942, as a historical fact, indisputable and
general public knowledge, Japanese forces entered this city, occupying
militarily as well as its suburbs, leaving all its inhabitants under the
absolute obedience and submission to the forces invasive.
On January 8, 1942, the Commander in Chief of the Japanese
occupation forces, sent a message (Exhibit F) to George B. Vargas was
then the Mayor of Manila Strongest, requiring the administrative
organization of a constitution as soon as possible, after the necessary
negotiations with the authorities, and the military administration, and
course work in harmony with the principles and Japanese policy. On
January 23, 1942 and after some discussion in which it is alleged were
involved at the invitation of George B. Vargas, some prominent
Filipinos, among these, the defendant here, was prepared Exhibit A
(Letter of Response), which is reply to the above message Exhibit F. in
that "letter of response", it was stated that, pursuant to that message,
all Filipinos undersigned were ready to obey, according to their best
ability the orders issued by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese
forces, in order to maintain peace and order, under the Japanese
military administration, and consequently, had formed a State Council
provisionally, with the object of preparing the articles of organization
for administration, according to the said post. This "letter of response"
is alleged, it was discussed and signed, among others, by the
defendant here.
On January 23, 1942, ie, the same date that was given the "letter of
response" to the Japanese military Supreme Authority, the authority
issued Order No. 1, Exhibit AA-1, creating the Philippine Executive
Commission with a "chairman" and executive departments: Interior,
Finance, Justice, Agriculture and Commerce, Education, Health and
Public Welfare and Public Works. Each department provided that
should be under the jurisdiction and control of the
"Chairman" of the executive committee, that each department would
have an "adviser" and the necessary auxiliaryto the Commander in
Chief of the Japanese military forces could exercise jurisdiction on any
court court and that each of said commissioners would be appointed

by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese military forces, to

recommendations of the "Chairman" of the executive committee.
On January 23, 1942 (Exhibit PP), Commander in Chief of the military
forces of Japanese occupation, issued the appointments of "Chairman"
of the Executive Committee, including, allegedly containing the
defendant here, as Commissioner agriculture and Commerce. On the
same date, ie on January 23, 1942 (Exhibit OO), Commander in Chief
sent a message to the members of the Council of State, expressing his
great satisfaction, by offering to cooperate with the Japanese military
administration. The minutes of the Council of State can be seen in
Exhibits U-1 to U-15, in whose deliberations here alleges that the
accused took part as a member of the State Council.
On February 13, 1943 (see specifically the Exhibit U-15), the Chairman
Vargas submitted a draft of a manifesto to the Filipino people that was
read by the then Commissioner Mr. Justice Laurel, alleging that the
defendant was present at the deliberation of that manifesto, and that I
sign it, as shown in Exhibits B, B-1, G and G-1.
On May 31, 1943 (see Exhibits C and C-1) addressed a proclamation
(Appeal), appeal to the Filipino people, signed by Vargas and cabinet
members, among whom, it is alleged, also signed the defendant here,
announcing in said proclamation, the Premier of Japan General
Hideiki Tozyo was willing to grant independence to the Philippines in
the shortest time possible while actively and unreservedly, Filipinos
cooperate with Japan for the accommodation facility, the "Greater
East Asia Co- Prosperity Sphere, "and the final victory of Japan.
On June 30, 1943, according to the Exhibit Z, organized the
Preparatory Commission for Philippine independence, Filipino group
being present at the official residence of the Commander in Chief of
the Japanese forces in the Philippines and among the members of that
committee , include the name of the accused here.
On September 4, 1943 was adopted by the Preparatory Commission
for the Constitution's Independence of the Philippine Republic, as
shown in Exhibits D and D-1, which allegedly took part in the same
sign and the defendant here, as member of the Preparatory
Commission.
On April 15, 1944, the then President of the Republic entitled
Philippines, Jose P. Laurel, according to the exhibits R-2 and R-3, sent

a special mission of gratitude to Japan, issuing the appropriate

credentials for Benigno S. Aquino as president of that mission and
other members of the Government, including the defendant here was
as Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This mission of
gratitude was in order to express the Emperor of Japan expressions of
the sincere gratitude of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines, by the help and assistance received from the Emperor in
favor of the speedy granting of independence to the Philippines and
realization of the treaty of alliance between the Philippines and Japan.
In connection with this mission of gratitude, see photographs Exhibits
H-7 and H-8 where it appears the portrait of the accused.
On September 22, 1944, the said President of the Republic of the
Philippines issued the Proclamation No. 30 which after several
considerations, stated that, as President of the Philippine Republic,
proclaimed a state of war between the Republic the Philippines and
the United States of America and Great Britain effectively on
September 23, 1944, alleging that the defendant here voted and
approved this announcement. (See Exhibits E, E-1 and E-2).
The December 12, 1944, as shown in Exhibit BB, Ambassador Murata
graciously give several decorations awarded by the Emperor of Japan
President Laurel and another member of his cabinet and government,
among whom was the defendant here, as Minister Agriculture and
Natural Resources who alleges he was awarded the decoration of the
first order of merit of the Sacred Treasure. (See Exhibit BB-1).
LEGAL ASPECT OF TESTS
Let us now consider the probative value of the evidence in order to
treason that is accused Rafael R. Alunan, under a legal provision
contained in Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code and to consider
appropriate to cite here:
Article 114. Treason. - Any person who, Owing allegiance to (the
United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being
a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to Their enemies,
giving them aid or comfort Within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere,
Shall Be punished by reclusion temporal to death and Shall pay a fine
not to Exceed P20, 000 pesos.
No person Shall Be Convicted of treason on the testimony UNLESS of
two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of The

Accused in open court. Such an arrangement is basic and elementary

transcribed in the matter at hand. It is the governing test as treason.

cannot override the general rule of at least two witnesses, as provided

in the Revised Penal Code.

No need to go to several sources, or more or less respectable

authorities who have dealt with the matter, to give legal precept that
the proper interpretation and scope. The provision is clear and we
must not digress. Furthermore, the second world war, has no parallel
in the history of mankind, so everything said so far no application to
the present.

The authenticity of signatures on documents that may contain

criminal matter of treason, can not be established by ordinary means
of proof required by the rules of the courts. Necessarily authenticity
must be proved by the testimony of at least two witnesses who saw the
defendant materially sign. And more so in the case concerning Exhibit
JJ, whose embodiment, as shown, is not very satisfactory, because it is
split and overlapping parts. The prosecution, making supreme efforts
in the line of duty, has put great effort to authenticate as genuine firms
under the defendant's name appear in Exhibits HH, II, JJ in order to
establish the fact of adherence or adhesion defendant to the cause of
the enemy, since for a conviction for the crime of treason, not enough
running acts that would constitute aid and comfort to the enemy, but
it is necessary, in addition, the requirement of the accession of the
accused enemy to the cause, and such bond must also be established
under the rule of not less than two witnesses. Such is the law, and not
up to us to amend, modify or add it, if your wording is clear, specific
and accurate as is paragraph 2. Article was discussed.

The legal provision contained in the second paragraph of Article 114 of

the Revised Penal Code, is perfectly justified. This is a crime, treason,
punishable so severe that the legislature intended established at
common law, reducing them to narrow limits and extent of regulation
of at least two witnesses to every act.
Hence, the documentary evidence, technical or expert evidence, and
other ordinary means test on treason lack the necessary efficiency and
probative value, unless they are supported by the testimony of at least
two witnesses. Natural and logical, is, so be it. In time of war, and war
of barbarism and cruelty, that has been the hallmark of The latest (we
refer to Germany and Japan) with ignorance to ignorance of any law
or international treaty, all the writing, all published and performed,
generally at the mercy of the invading enemy by law brute force
dominates, controls and features all life in the place occupied.
And that's what the law requires as evidence, the testimony of at least
two witnesses, for the best guarantee of truth in each alleged act of aid
and comfort to the enemy. Outside the testimony of two witnesses to
every act, or the admission or confession by the defendant in open
court, other tests such as newspapers, photographs, etc., Are merely
secondary or corroborative without merit or value for themselves in
crimes of treason.
The accusation has been much emphasis on identifying the signature
of the accused in the Exhibits HH, II, JJ, and this effect brought to
testify as an expert witness or expert to Edgar Bond, who examined
the signatures on these exhibits about with others genuine claim to the
accused and being recorded in the Exhibits KK, RR, RR-1, TT and TT1, as public documents, combining those with genuine signatures
appearing in Exhibits HH, II, JJ, and ensuring that signatures on
these are also exhibits about the defendant himself. According to what
we have decided and declared, in our humble opinion, the expert

But even assuming for purposes of discussion only firms that under
the defendant's name appear in Exhibits HH, II and JJ were genuine,
they are, in our view, constitute no sufficient proof of adherence to the
enemy. This follows from the same context.
Considering the probative value of certain exhibits about, the
indictment alleges that public documents from a government fact, we
estimate that such documents cannot escape the general test of at least
two witnesses, even if they were public documents case of processes
for treason. Although some of the charges or acts under the
indictment, have been established in the form and manner prescribed
by law, such acts were executed by the defendant in the performance
of their official duties, that is, by reason of the public office that played
under abnormal circumstances, and therefore can not be estimated as
acts proper support and comfort to the enemy cause. We are of
opinion that the mere acceptance of a public office and perform the
functions and duties attached thereto in and during the Japanese
military occupation of the Philippines, not per se crime of treason. But
even accepting that such acts alleged against the accused here were
really helpful and comfort to the enemy, are not punishable in this
particular case, since it has not been proven successful defendant's

adherence to the enemy because, as we have said above, is a

prerequisite for a conviction for the crime of treason.
By contrast, the own testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses in
cross-examination period, it appears that the defendant virtio phrases
and concepts that point to Manifest your own true feelings.
In a preliminary session on January 7, 1942, while discussing the
Exhibit A (letter of response), the Secretary Alunan, among other
things, stated:
"It would be a very dangerous step to form another government
instrument to serve the Japanese government as a" puppet "(Puppet
Government) style Nanking Government and were best left completely
in the hands of the Japanese military government for not being
traitors graduates . "
Also, in a session of the State Council dated February 18, 1942, stated:
"I agree with the President of the Supreme Court 'Yulo we must be
practical in this case. If President Roosevelt is not going to make
practical the telegram, so that we will ship. Besides our brothers are
still fighting for our freedom in the battlefields and we should not be
the first to discourage them. Also can Ilagar reinforcements can return
America and the U.S. government and still retain our loyalty to our
Government and our Commonwealth Heads. We are worthless to
change war plans or influence the outcome of it. As drafted the
telegram, we should not settle, even though we can sign our air
followed by resignation. "
So has the witness' own testimony Vicente Formoso, in crossexamination, stating as prosecution witness.
Therefore, considering the motion to dismiss meritorious by the
defense, it is decreed definitive dismissal of this case, the costs of
trade, and therefore cancellation of the security given by the accused
to bail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, February 27, 1947.
Leopoldo Roviro
Presiding Judge.