LAUREL v.

PEOPLE FACTS: Anastacio Laurel gave aid and comfort to the Japanese and is being prosecuted for the crime of trason. He says he should be acquitted because (1) the sovereignty of the legitimate government of the Philippines and the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) there was a change of sovereignty over the Philippines upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of the PH was suspended NO. A ctizien owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign. It is not to be confused with the qualified and temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides. Neither is it abrogated or severed by enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier. It remains vested in the legitimate, titular government. A sovereignty cannot be suspended because to do so will put it out of existence. Temporary allegiance is similar to temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives, and does not do away wit the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign. Political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties, and obligation of government and citizens are suspended in abeyance during military occupation for the reason that they are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by occupant. Petitioners theory of suspended allegiance would lead to disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public conscience, for it would whet invaders appetites to legally recruit or enlist the inhabitants thereof to fight against their own government, the latter without the risk of being prosecuted for treason. PEOPLE v. PEREZ FACTS: Susano Kid Perez was convicted of treason in seven informations, providing Japanese officials such as Colonel Mini local women for satisfy his carnal desires. COUNT 1: Eriberta Ramo; accused came to her house and told her she was wanted in the house of her aunt, but was brought to the house of the Puppet Governor. After escaping and getting caught, she was brought to Colonel Mini, whom appellant misrepresented as wanting her to be his Information Clerk and his wife; upon seeing Col. Mini, he had nothing but a G-string on; Mini threatened her with a sword and tied her to the bed; raped twice COUNT 2: accused took Eriberta and Cleopatra Ramo to attend a banquet and a dance organized in honor of Col. Mini by the Puppet Governor; real intent was to allow Mini to select those first who would be taken to satisfy his carnal appetite

COUNT 4: Eduarda Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay were taken from their homes by accused and his companion Vicente Bullecer, who raped them before they were taken to Dr. Takibayas; COUNT 5: Feliciana Bolanos and Flaviana Bolanos were tricked into being taken as witnesses before a Japanese colonel in the investigation of a case against Insik Eping, but instead were brought to Col. Mini, who raped Felciana twice; accused also raped Flaviana; corroborated by Feliciana and Victoriana Arayan (mother) COUNT 6: accused apprehended Natividad Barcinas, Nicanora Ralameda, and Teotima Barcinas, nurses of the provincial hosputal, for not having attended a dance and reception organized by the Puppet Governonr; they were asked to attend another dance; Barcinas refused and feigned sickness, to which Perez found out ISSUE: Whether or not Perez was guilty of treason by providing aid and comfort to the enemies NO. Appellant is guilty of rape as a principal by direct participation If furningshing women for immoral purposes to the enemies was treason because womens company kept up their morale, so fraternizing with them, entertaining them at parties, selling them food and drinks, and kindred acts would be treason. 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 be directly in furtherance of the enemies; hostile designs Accused was not guilty any more than the women themselves would have been if they voluntarily and willingly had surrendered their bodies or organized the entertainment. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of the United States. 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 circumstances of each particular case. PEOPLE v. PRIETO FACTS: Appellant was prosecuted for treason on 7 counts. Two witnesses gave evidence on count 4 but their statements do not coincide on any single detail. JUANITO ALBANO: March 1945, accused, w/other PH undercovers and JAP soldiers caught an American aviator and had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled by a carabao, on the way accused walked behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the sled was faster than the airplane VALENTIN CUISON: March 1945, accused was following an American and the accused were Japanese and other Filipinos Count 1: Accused lead a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers to Poknaon to apprehend guerrillas and locate their hideouts; apprehended Abraham Puno, tied his hands behind him and gave him fist blows

Count 2: accused lead PH undercovers to apprehend guerrillas and guerrilla suspects, and apprehended Guillermo Ponce and Macario Ponce; gave fist blows on the face and other parts of body to Ponce Count 3: accused lead 6 PH and 2 JAP soliders to Pakna-an to apprehend guerrillas and suspects; apprehended Damian Alilin and Santiago Alilin; the latter were bayoneted to death Count 7: accused lead PH undercovers to cause the torture of Antonio Soco and the killing of Gil Soco RTC: accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of treason complexed with murder and PHYS INJURIES ISSUES: Whether the evidence culled from witnesses satisfies the two-witness principle NO, because the two witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on any parto f it Whether or not the execution of guerrilla suspects and the infliction of physical injuries are separate from treason NO. Under PH treason law and US constitution defining treason, there must concur both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. Giving of 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. 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, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as Art. 48 of the RPC provides. HOWEVER, the brutality w/ which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as an aggravating circumstance. This circumstance was offset by plea of guilty. PEOPLE v. MANAYAO FACTS: Appellants Pedro Manayao, Filomeno Flores, and Raymundo Flores were charged with treason with multiple murder. He was convicted of treason with AC of (1) aid of armed men (2) the employment or presence of a band in the commission of crime. On 1/27/1945, the guerrillas raided the Japanese in Bulacan. JAP soliders and Pinoys affiliated with the MAKAPILI gathered the residents of Banaban behind the barrio chapel, separated the men from women, set the residents houses on fire, and butchered all the persons assembled. Appellant killed the mothers of two witnesses, Maria Paulino and Clarita Perez, among those six women he killed. He wanted to kill the children, but the Japanese interceded. ISSUE: Whether or not appellant was guilty of treason YES. Appellant is guilty of treason with multiple muder committed with aggravating circumstance of armed band.

Testomonies of Clarita Paulino, Maria Perez, and Policarpio Tigas established the crime. The children knew him as Indong Pintor or Pedro the painter. They could not have erred in the narration of the salient phases of the tragic events in Banaban. Witness Tomas M. Pablo declared he saw the corpses of the massacred residents of Banaban, and admitted his participation in the massacre in 2 sworn statements. Whether or not appellant lost his citizenship Par. 3, 4, and 6 of Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 indicate that A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in the ff. ways or events: (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining 21 yrs of age or more; (4) By accepting commission in the military, naval, or air service of a foreign country; (6) 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 None of those conditions above were fulfilled. There was no proof he took such oath. No showing that he was accepted in the military, naval, or air service of the foreign country, nor has he been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Army, Navy, or Air Corps in time of war. Art. II Sec. 2 of the 1987 Consti: Sec. 2. The defense of the State is a prime duty of government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal, military, or civil service. Whether or not it is proper to take separately take into account against appellant the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men and band NO, it is improper, only the aggravating circumstance of band is to be considered, as such AC requires that three armed malefactors shall have acted together. Whether or not appellant is exculpated because he acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior NO, because his acts constitute obedience to an illegal order. The construction contended for by appellant could entail in its potentialities even the destruction of the Republic. Appellant voluntarily joined the Makapili w/ full knowledge of its avowed purpose of rendering military aid to Japan. He knew the consequences. Appellant acted with gusto during the butchery of Banaban, PEOPLE v. ADRIANO FACTS: Between January and April 1945, appellant joined the Makapili, a military organization established and designed to assist and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial forces in the PH in the said enemys war efforts and operations against the USE and the PH, specifically in Nueva

Ecija. Prosecution did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the facts except that defendant joined the Makapili organization. Peoples Court found that accused participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation of personal property, but the Court found that these acts had not been established by the testimony of 2 witnesses. The Court found, through 2 witnesses, that accused was in Makapili military uniform, armed with a rifle, and that he drilled with other Makapilis under a Japanese instructor. Only fact that 2 witnesses established that defendant was a Makapili. ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of treason by reason of him being a member of the Makapili HELD: NO, because evidence did not satisfy two-wtiness rule. Whartons Criminal Evidence: The opportunity of detecting the falsity of the testimony, by sequestering 2 witnesses and exposing their variance in details, is wholly destroyed by permitting them to speak to different acts. VII Wigmore on Evidence: Each of the witnesses must testify to the whole of the overt act; or, if it is separable, there must be 2 witnesses to each part of the overt act. J. Learned Hand: ...necessary to produce 2 direct witnesses to the whole overt act. It may be possible to piece bits together of the overt act; but if so, each bit must have the support of (2) oaths. Having joined a Makapili organization is evidence of both adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. Membership in such organization imports treasonable intent, considering the purpose for which the organization was created: (1) to accomplish filfillment of the obligations assumed by the PH in the Pact of Alliance with the Empire of Japan (2) to shed blood and sacrifice lives of people in order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence in Asia Adherence, unlike 2 overt acts, need not be proved by the oaths of 2 witnesses. Criminal intent and knowledge may be gathered from the testimony of 1 witness, or from the nautre of the act itself, or the circumstances surrounding the act. Being a Makapili is in itself an overt act. Not necessary that defendant actually went to battle or committed nefarious acts against his country or countrymen. 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. PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ, DE REYES, BULAYBULAY FACTS: In Tawi-Tawi, the accused, being crew members of M/V Noria 767, a barter trade vessel, with bladed weapons and high caliber firearms, took cash money worth P3,517,000, personal belongings of passengers and crew amounting to P130,000, and the vessels compass, navigational charts, and instruments amounting to P40,000. They were convicted of piracy by Sulu and Tawi-tawi CFI.

Witnesses: Clyde Que, passenger: saw Peter Power and the accused, all armed with rifles, fired at Ques companions, and brought Que to manage the steering wheel Hadji Mahalail Alfad, passenger: commotions from the motor launch, followed by gunfire; hid among sacks of copra; pretended to be dead intil daytime Emil Macasaet Jr., skipper of the vessel: ordered his men to open a cabin door; when opened, saw a gun upon him; hid upon bags of copra until Rodriguez fired at him; took under the cover of a bodega of copra; 4 hrs later, Usman persuaded him to come out. 10AM, vessel reached an island and appellant secured pumpboats, carrying the loot in (9) attache cases full of money. Municipal Health Officer Leopoldo Lao boarded the vessel when it arrived in Cagayan and daw 10 dead bodies. ISSUES: Whether or not RTC erred in imposing death penalty to the accused despite plea of guilty NO. Death penalty was correctly imposed because Sec. 3a of PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy Law), provides that if rape, homicide, or murder is committed on occasion of piracy, death penalty shall be imposed. The RTC committed no error in allowing the MC of plea of guilty, because an indivisible penalty was meted out. Whether or not RTC erred in giving weight to the alleged sworn statements of Peter Power Perer Powers statements were not objected to by the defense, and were confirmed by him upon cross-examination. Further, witnesses Macasaet and Alfad also pointed to have seen Ponce armed with an M-14 rifle. Ponce was also fully advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Conspiracy was present, and thus, everyone is responsible for the crime committed. PEOPLE v. SIYOH FACTS: On July 10, 1979, Antonio DeGuzman, Danilo Hiolen, Rodolfo de Castro, and Anastacio de Guzman received goods from his store consisting of mosquito nets, blankets, wrist watch, etc with a total value of P15,000. The aformentioned will sell them for Alberto Aurea, but they keep the profits for themselves. On July 15, 1979, De Guzman informed Aurea that his group was held up near Baluk0Baluk Island and that his companions were hacked. De Guzman and his friends were on their way to Pilas Island. They decided to sell in different areas, until the group, upon the suggestion of Kiram, went to Baluk-baluk. Kiram and Siyoh talked with two persons before returning to Pilas. On their way back, Kiram turned off the engine of the pumpboat while a pumpboat painted red and green about 200m away. Shots were fired, as (2) people were seen armed with armantes. De Guzmans pumpboat was towed to Mataja Island, where Kiram and his companions divested them of their cash and clothes. Kiram took De Guzmans pants. He and his companions killed De Guzman and company, save for the

latter, who swam to safety in a mangrove, and was picked up by a fishing boat. He was brought to the Philippine Army station. On 7/15/1979, De Guzman saw Siyoh and Kiram and pointed to them as the perpetrators. ISSUE: Whether or not De Guzmans testimony suffices to convict the accused of piracy YES. Appellants convicted of PIRACY. RTC decision AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to (1) lack of necessary votes the penalty imposed shall be RP; and (b) each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in the amount of P30,000 CLAIMS OF APPELLANTS 1.) If they were culprits, they could have robbed their victims at the Kiram house or on any of the occasions when they were travelling together Robbing victims at Kirams house would make Kiram and his family immediately suspect and robbing the victims before they had sold all their goods would be premature. Killing and robbing victims while at sea after they had sold their goods was both timely and provided safety from prying eyes. 2.) Accused immediately reported incident to PC Judge Rasul: if defenses version was to be true, why did De Guzman testify against them? 3.) Affidavits of the wife of Anastacio de Guzman and wife of Rodolfo de Castro indicated that their husbands were killed by companions of Siyoh and Kiram, and not the appellants Claim is baseless, because conspiracy was proved in the face. FF facts establish conspiracy: a) survivor-witness Tony de Guzman noticed that accused were talking to (2) men in Baluk-Baluk b)when the pumpboat was chased andovertaken, same two men were their captors c) the two accused transferred the unsold goods to the captors banca d) those in the pumpboat were undressed and stripped of jewelries and cash but not the accused 4.) No evidence that Anastacio de Guzman was killed together with Rodolfo de Castro and Danilo Hiolen because his remains were never recovered No reason to suppose that Anastacio de Guzman is still alive or that he died in a manner different from his companions; incident took place on July 14, 1979, case decided on June 8,1991, and ADG was still missing; number of persons killed on occasion of piracy is immaterial 5.) Death certificates are vague as to nature of injuries of the victims were they hacked or shot? Cause of death is HEMORRHAGE due to hacked wounds or possible gunshot wounds. Consistent with testimony of Antonio de Guzman that they were hacked.