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 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. Whatever favorable effect the
defendant’s 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.
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.
-Appellant’s
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 People’s
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
appellant’s 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 enemy’s 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.
