Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

83 PHIL 314

People vs. Perez

FACTS: Accused Perez was charged with treason and rape. The accused kidnapped several women in order to
present them to a Japanese Commander to satisfy the latter’s carnal pleasure against the will of the women. In some
instances, the accused himself raped several women.

HELD/RATIO: The accused was acquitted in relation to the crime of treason; but, he was found guilty in relation to the
crime of rape. The acts of the accused in relation with the Japanese didn’t directly and materially tend to improve the
war efforts or to weaken the power of the United States. Moreover, intent of disloyalty – which is essential in the
crime of treason – is lacking. Nevertheless, the accused can be held liable for the several counts of rape he

Facts: Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano

Perez aka Kid Perez, the accused, for recruiting,
apprehending, and commandeering women (Eriberta
Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, and Flaviana
Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the immoral purpose
and sexual desire of Colonel Mini, and
otherJapanese of Officers.

Only counts 1,2,4,5,6 were substantiated. In the 4th and

5th counts, the accused personally assaulted and
abused two of the offended girls.

Susano Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to

death by electrocution by the People’s Court.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of the accused constitute a

crime of treason
Held : NO. There is a dilemma in trying to draw a line
between treasonable and untreasonable assistance, since
the scope of adherence to the enemy is comprehensive,
and its requirement indeterminate, but as a general rule
acts providing aid and comfort to the enemies are
considered treasonable when the aid and comfort
rendered are directed to them as enemies not as mere
individuals. To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend
so that he may buy personal necessities is not technically
traitorous, but to lend or give money to an enemy to
enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use against
the government of the giver is treason.

The act of the accused of providing the enemies

with women andentertainment, boosting their (the
enemies’) morale and making their lives more pleasant, is
not treason. Sexual and social relations
withthe Japanese did not directly and materially tend to
improve their war efforts or weaken the power of
the government. Any favourable effect toward
the Japanese that the accused might have made was
trivial, imperceptible and unintentional. Intent of disloyalty
is a vitalingredient in the crime of treason, which in the
absence of admissionmay be gathered from the nature
and circumstances of each case. In this particular case, it
was not evident that the intent of the accused in providing
the enemies with women was to help them overthrow