PEOPLE V. PEREZ
Whatever favorable effect the defendant’s
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 women’s 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.
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. Whether the “two-witness” rule was sufficiently complied.
2. 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.
CASE DIGEST ON U.S. V. BAUTISTA [6 Phil. 581 (1906)]
Nature: Appeal from the judgment of the Manila CFI
Facts: In 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a
number of Filipinos in Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing the
government of the United States in the Philippine Islands by force of arms
and establishing a new government.
Francisco Bautista (1), a close friend of the chief of military forces (of the
conspirators) took part of several meetings. Tomas Puzon (2) held several
conferences whereat plans are made for the coming insurrection; he was
appointed Brigadier-General of the Signal Corps of the revolutionary forces.
Aniceto de Guzman (3) accepted some bonds from one of the conspirators.
The lower court convicted the three men of conspiracy. Bautista was
sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and a P3,000 fine; Puzon and De
Guzman to 3 years imprisonment and P1,000.
Issue: WON the accused are guilty of conspiracy.
Held: Judgment for Bautista and Puzon CONFIRMED. Judgment for de
Guzman REVERSED. Yes, Bautista and Puzon are guilty of conspiracy.
Bautista was fully aware of the purposes of the meetings he participated in,
and even gave an assurance to the chief of military forces that he is making
the necessary preparations. Puzon voluntarily accepted his appointment and
in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance. This
may be considered as an evidence of the criminal connection of the accused
with the conspiracy.
However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy. He might have been
helping the conspirators by accepting bonds in the bundles, but he has not
been aware of the contents nor does he was, in any occasion, assumed any
obligation with respect to those bonds.
Note: see RPC Art. 136: Crimes against public order: conspiracy and
proposal to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion or insurrection.
People v. Lol-lo & Saraw, 43 Phil. 19
G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922.
MALCOLM, J.
FACTS:
• 2 boats of Dutch possession left matuta. In 1 of the boats was
1 individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat 11 men,
women, and children, subjects of Holland. The 2nd boat arrived
between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies.
There the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 Moros
all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch
boat, too for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the
men, and brutally violated 2 of the women. All of the persons on
the Dutch boat, except the 2 young women, were again placed on
it and holes were made in it, the idea that it would
submerge. The Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch
possession. 2 of the Moro marauder were Lol-lo, who also raped
one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the 2 women were able
to escape.
• Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian,
Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There they were arrested and
were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime
of piracy
• All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is
robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful
authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of
universal hostility.
• Pirates are in law hostes humani generis.
• Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all
mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any
country where the offender may be found or into which he may be
carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no
territorial limits.
• As it is against all so may it be punished by all. Nor does it
matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-
mile limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to
war, are not neutral to crimes."
ISSUE: W/N the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the
crime of piracy are still in force.
HELD: In accordance with provisions of Act No. 2726, the
defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of
piracy and is sentenced therefor to be hung until dead.
YES.
 Penal code dealing with the crime of piracy, notably articles
153 and 154, to be still in force in the Philippines.
 The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) an offense
against chastity and (2) the abandonment of persons without
apparent means of saving themselves. It is, therefore, only
necessary for us to determine as to whether the penalty of
cadena perpetua or death should be imposed.
 At least 3 aggravating circumstances, that the wrong done in
the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by
causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission, that
advantage was taken of superior strength, and that means were
employed which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act,
must also be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty.
➢ People vs Siyoh, 141 SCRA 356 ( Qualified Piracy, a
special complex crime )
FACTS
> Julaide Siyoh and Omarkyam Kiram, together with Namli
Indanan and Andaw Jamahali were accused of qualified
piracy with triple murder and frustrated murder
> On July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with his
friends who were also travelling merchants like him (Danilo
Hiolen. Rodolfo de Castro and Anastacio de Guzman) were
on their way to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan, to sell goods
they received from Alberto Aurea.
> They left for Pilas Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10, 1979 on a
pumpboat. They took their dinner and slept that night in the
house of Omar-kayam Kiram at Pilas Island. Who also
helped them from selling their goods to different Islands near
Pilas.
> Before the incident happened, Antonio, the lone survivor
saw that Kiram was talking with another two persons that he
can only recognize in their faces somewhere near the house
where they were selling the goods
> On July 14, 1979, When they were heading back to Pilas
Island from Baluk-Baluk Island through riding a pumpboat
where Siyoh positioned himself at the front while Kiram
operated the engine.
> On the way to Pilas Island, Antonio de Guzman saw
another pumpboat painted red and green about 200 meters
away from their pumpboat Shortly after" Kiram turned off the
engine of their pumpboat. Thereafter two shots were fired
from the other pumpboat as it moved towards them
> There were two persons on the other pumpboat who were
armed with armantes. De Guzman recognized them to be the
same persons he saw Kiram conversing with in a house at
Baluk-Baluk Island.
> When the boat came close to them, Kiram threw a rope to
the other pumpboat which towed de Guzman's pumpboat
towards Mataja Island.
> On the way to Mataja Island, Antonio de Guzman and his
companions were divested of their money and their goods by
Kiram. Thereafter Kiram and his companions ordered the
group of de Guzman to undress. Taking fancy on the pants
of Antonio de Guzman, Kiram put it on.
> With everybody undressed, Kiram said 'It was good to kill
all of you'. After that remark, Siyoh hacked Danilo Hiolen
while Kiram hacked Rodolfo de Castro. Antonio de Guzman
jumped into the water. As he was swimming away from the
pumpboat, the two companions of Kiram fired at him, injuring
his back. But he was able to reach a mangrove where he
stayed till nightfall. When he left the mangrove, he saw the
dead bodies of Anastacio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen and
Rodolfo de Castro. He was picked up by a fishing boat and
brought to the Philippine Army station at Maluso where he
received first aid treatment. Later he was brought to the J.S.
Alano Memorial Hospital at Isabela, Basilan province.
> On July 15, 1979, while waiting for the dead bodies of his
companions at the wharf, de Guzman saw Siyoh and Kiram.
He pointed them out to the PC and the two were arrested
before they could run. When arrested, Kiram was wearing
the pants he took from de Guzman and de Guzman had to
ask Pat. Bayabas at the Provincial Jail to get back his pants death—but the number of persons killed on the occasion of
from Kiram piracy is not material. PD 532 considers qualified piracy as a
special complex crime punishable by death. Therefore, the
guilt of respondent were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE: WoN the respondent-appellants are guilty beyond 2. There was no other evidence presented on why should the
reasonable doubt? lone survivor tell lies and fabricate story as to apprehend the
accused.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS
1. Since it was contested by appellants that there guilt was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt since the prosecution
did not present evidence that the accused were also the one
who killed Anastacio de Guzman because his remains are
never recovered.
3. Appellants claim that they were not the assailants but also
the victim and that the two persons they have identified
(Namli Indanan and Andaw Jamahali) is baseless as view in
the proven conspiracy among the accused. The Conspiracy
was established through the testimony of the lone witness
and survivor- De Guzman"

2. The Credibility of the Witness—since only 1 witness was

presented

3. Appellants claim (Siyoh and Kiram) that they were not the
assailants but also the victim

HELD: They were said to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of qualified piracy with triple murder and frustrated homicide

RATIONALE

1. Number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy, not

material; Piracy, a special complex crime punishable by