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, and the 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 auxiliary to 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. 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 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 TT-1, 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 cannot override the general rule of at least two witnesses, as provided in the Revised Penal Code.

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. 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 cross-examination, 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.