Treason
1. Anastacio Laurel vs Eriberto Misa
Facts:
Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus based on a theory 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 defined and penalized by
article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reasonn
(1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
consequently, the correlative alegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then
suspended; and
(2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation
of the Philippine Republic:
ISSUE:
WON the Filipino citizen who aided the enemy during the Japanese occupation can
be prosecuted for treason. (YES)
Ruling:
The court held that a citizen or subject owes absolute and permanent
allegiance to their government or sovereign, and this allegiance is not
abrogated or severed by enemy occupation.
temporarily allegiance- a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of
the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives as
above described, and does not do away with the absolute and permanent
allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own
government or sovereign;
that just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be
prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the
same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the
enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or
sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and
comfort;
and that if the allegiance of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign
is nothing more than obedience to its laws in return for the protection he
receives, it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreign
country or state would, on one hand, ipso factoacquire the citizenship thereof
since he has enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life,
in return for the protection he receives, and would, on the other hand, lose his
original citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws
of his own government or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign
country, the protection he is entitled to in his own;
2. People of the Philippines vs. Cucufate Adlawan
Treason
FACTS: Cucufate Adlawan is found guilty of treason for supporting the
enemy during World War II, sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine, while
the court rules that the killings, robbery, and rape mentioned in the case were
elements of the crime of treason and could not be used to increase the
penalty.
ISSUE:
WON the court erred in holding that the crime committed by then accused is a
complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery;
RULING:
The court erred.
we find merit in the contention that appellant should not have been convicted of the
so-called "complex crime of treason with murder, robbery, and rape." The killings,
robbery, and raping mentioned in the information are therein alleged not as specific
offenses but as mere elements of the crime of treason for which the accused is being
prosecuted. Being merged in and identified with the general charge, they can not be
used in combination with treason to increase the penalty under article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Prieto,1 L-399, January 29, 1948.) Appellant
should, therefore, be held guilty of treason only.
The penalty prescribed for the crime of treason is reclusion temporal to death and a
fine of not to exceed P20,00 Giving the appellant the benefit of the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary confession of guilty, but appreciating against him the
aggravating circumstances of ignominy and unnecessary cruel, the said penalty
should be imposed in its maximum. But since five member of this court are opposed
to the imposition of the death penalty in this case, the appellant can only be
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.
Wherefore, the judgment below is modified in the sense that the appellant is
declared guilty of treason and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
P20,000, with costs in this instance de oficio.
3. People of the Philippines vs Francisco Concepcion
Facts:
The case of People v. Concepcion involves Francisco Concepcion, who was charged with
treason for apprehending individuals with guerrilla connections during the Japanese
occupation of the Philippines.
There were minor discrepancies as to the testimonies of the prosecution.
Prosecution witness Agapito Severino:
Treason
testified that the appellant, with a Japanese interpreter, arrived at their house and
inquired if his brother Basilio Severino was at home, and said that the latter was
wanted at the military police headquarters for questioning
Other prosecution witness Edgardo Severino:
did not corroborate witness Agapito in this respect. Neither did the latter corroborate
Edgardo as regards the fact that Basilio Severino was taking a bath and as regards
Basilio's statement that the appellant and his companions should wait.
Issues:
counsel for the appellant argues that the charges of which the
appellant was convicted have not been approved in accordance with
the two-witness rule.
Ruling:
The two-witness rule has been complied with
There may not be corroboration between the two prosecution witnesses on the
points mentioned, but said witnesses are uniform in their testimony that Basilio
Severino was arrested on December 7, 1944. The latter important detail constitutes
the overt act of treason charged in count 3.
Side notes:
Ni ingon si appellant: He joined the Japanese under duress.
SC said:
There is nothing in the record which tends to indicate that the appellant apprehended
or aided in the arrest of his victims under actual and imminent threats of death or
bodily harm in case he should do otherwise.
> mao ni gi ingon ni Reyes nga ang acceptable nga reason ngano mo cmmit ug
Treason kung naay actual and imminent threats of death or bodily harm in case
he should do otherwise. Way lain na rason
