LAUREL v.

MISA
G.R. No. L-409. January 30, 1947

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be prosecuted for the crime of Treason penalized
under Art. 114 of the RPC.

FACTS:
Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus which was 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 reason that the

sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the

correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended.

HELD:
YES. The idea of suspended sovereignty or

suspended allegiance is incompatible with our Constitution. There is similarity in

characteristics between allegiance to the sovereign and a wife's loyalty to her husband.
Because some external and insurmountable force precludes the husband from
exercising his marital powers, functions, and duties and the wife is thereby deprived of
the benefits of his protection, may the wife invoke the theory of suspended loyalty and
may she freely share her

bed with the assailant of their home? After giving aid and comfort to the assailant and
allowing him to enjoy her charms during the former's stay in the invaded home, may
the wife allege as defense for her adultery the principle of

suspended conjugal fidelity?

Considering that the crime of treason against the government of the Philippines defined
and penalized in article 114 of the Penal Code, though originally intended to be a crime
against said government as then organized by authority of the sovereign people of the
United States,