G.R. No.

L-409 January 30, 1947

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner,
vs.
ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.

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 defined and penalized by the Article 114 of the
Revised Penal Code on the grounds 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 ENEMY OCCUPATION.

WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 114 OF THE REVISED

PENAL CODE.

HELD:

No. The absolute and permanent allegiance (Permanent allegiance is the unending allegiance
owed by citizens or subjects to their states. Generally, a person who owes permanent
allegiance to a state is called a national.) of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the
enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated (repealed) or severed by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. (Article II,
section 1, of the Constitution provides that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.")

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.

The petitioner is subject to the Revised Penal Code for the change of form of government
does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason because it is an
offense to the same government and same sovereign people. (Art. 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.)

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 inhabitants 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.
[No. L-778. October 10, 1947]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. NEMESIO L. AGPANGAN,
defendant and appellant. People vs. Agpangan, 79 Phil. 334, No. L-778 October 10, 1947

Facts a member of Ganap, a subversive pro-japanese organization joined the pampers, a

military organization supporting imperial Japanese army.

Issue: Won the 2 witness rule were met

Held: no, should testify as to the perpetration of the same treasonous overt act, and the sameness
must include not only identity of kind and nature of the act, but as to the precise one which has
actually been perpetrate

People v. Prieto
G.R. No. L-399 | January 29, 1948

Plaintiff: People of the Philippines

Defendant: Eduardo Prieto (Eddie Valencia)
Ponente: Tuason, J.

FACTS:
- Prieto was prosecuted in the People’s Court for 7 counts of treason. Initially, he pleaded not guilty to every charge. Later on, he
entered a plea of guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 7, and maintained his original plea to counts 4, 5 and 6.
- The prosecutor only presented evidence to count 4 as he admitted insufficiency of evidence as to counts 5 and 6. The court
found him guilty to all counts except 5 and 6 of “treason complexed by murder and physical injuries.”

ISSUE: What is the criminal liability of Prieto?

DECISION (Not guilty of count 4, guilty of treason in counts 1, 2, 3 and 7):

- Prieto is acquitted in count 4 as the of two-witness principle requirement was not satisfied. They failed to corroborate each oth-
er:
o Juanito Albano testified that the accused and other Filipino undercovers and Japanese officers caught an American
aviator and had him carried to town on a sled pulled by a carabao. That on the way, Prieto walked behind the sled and
the American was taken to the Kempetai headquarters.
o Valentin Cuison testified that he saw the accused following the American whose hands were tied while walking and
that he struck the flier with a rope. There was no mention of a sled and nor did he see Juanito Albano.
- There is no crime of treason complexed with other felonies because these were not separate offenses from treason.
o When a deed is charged as an element of treason, it becomes identified with it and cannot be subject of a separate
punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty.
o Murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of treason and cannot be regarded separately under their general
denomination.
o But the brutality which accompanied the killing and the physical injuries are taken as aggravating circumstances since
it augmented the sufferings of the offended parties unnecessarily to the attainment of the criminal objectives.
o But there is a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, hence, the punishment should be reclusion perpetua.
- Other issue:
o There is a presumption in favour of legality and regularity of the proceedings and the presumption that the accused
was not denied of his rights.
o The fact that the attorney appointed to defend Prieto is reluctant to accept the designation is not sufficient to over-
come the presumption. The present counsel “sincerely believes that the said Attorney Carin did his best, although it
was not the best of a willing worker.”

People vs. Perez

83 Phil 314
G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949
Ponente: Tuason, J.
Susano Perez was convicted of treason by the 5th Division of the People's Court sitting in Cebu City and
sentenced to death by electrocution. Only five (1, 2, 4, 5, 6) out of seven counts of information were
substantiated by the prosecution.

Facts:
 Count 1: Perez, with other Filipinos, recruited women girls and women against their will to satisfy the lust
of Colonel Mini. The victims included Felina Laput, Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, Felici-
ana Bonalos and Flaviana Bonalos. Eriberta Ramo testified that on June 15, 1942, the accused came to her
house to get her and told her that she was wanted in the house of her aunt, but instead, she was brought to
the house of the Puppet Governor Agapito Hontanosas; that she escaped and returned to Baclayon her
hometown; that the accused came again and told her that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his Information
Clerk; that she did not accept the job; that a week later the accused came to Baclayon to get her, and suc-
 ceeded in taking some other girls Puppet Governor Agapito Hontanosas; that Governor Hontanosas told her
that Colonel Mini wanted her to be his wife; that when she was brought to Colonel Mini the latter had noth-
ing on but a "G" string; that he, Colonel Mini threatened her with a sword tied her to a bed and with force
succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her; that on the following night, again she was brought to Colo-
nel Mini and again she was raped; that finally she was able to escape and stayed in hiding for three weeks
and only came out from the hiding when Colonel Mini left Tagbilaran.
 Count 2: Perez, in company with some Japanese and Filipinos, took Eriberta Ramo and her sister Cleopatra
Ramo from their home in Baclayon to attend a banquet and a dance organized in honor of Colonel Mini in
order that Mini might select those who would later be taken to satisfy his lust. By means of threat, force and
intimidation, the above mentioned two sisters were brought to the headquarters of the Japanese Com-
mander at the Mission Hospital in Tagbilaran.
 Count 4: On July 16, 1942, Eduarda S. Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay, were taken from their homes in Corella,
Bohol, by Perez and his companion named Vicente Bullecer, and delivered to the Japanese Officer, Dr.
Takibayas to satisfy his lust, but Perez and Bullecer raped the women first before bringing them to
Takibayas. Perez raped Eduarda and Bullecer raped Eutiquia Lamay. Eduarda S. Daohog testified that while
on the way to Tagbilaran, Perez through force and intimidation, raped her in an uninhabited house; that
upon arriving in Tagbilaran, she was delivered to the Japanese Officer named Takibayas who also raped her.
Eutiquia Lamay testified that on July 16, 1942, the accused and his companion, Bullecer, went to her house
to take her and her sister; that her sister was then out of the house; that the accused threatened her with a
revolver if she refuses to go; that she was placed in a car where Eduarda Daohog was; that while they were
in the car, the accused carried Eduarda out of the car, and their companion Bullecer took Eutiquia Lamay;
that later, she and Eduarda were taken to the Governor's house; that the accused and Bullecer brought the
two girls to the Japanese headquarters; that Eduarda was raped by Takibayas and Eutiquia was raped by
another Japanese.
 Count 5: On or about June 4, 1942, Perez commandeered Feliciana Bonalos and her sister Flaviana and that
they were to be taken as witnesses before a Japanese Colonel in the investigation of a case against a certain
Chinese (Insik Eping), and upon arriving at Tagbilaran, Bohol, the accused brought the two girls to the resi-
dence of Colonel Mini and by means of violence, threat and intimidation, Mini abused and had sexual inter-
course with Flaviana Bonalos; that Perez followed in having carnal knowledge with Flaviana; that two days
later, Perez brought Feliciana Bonalos to a secluded place in Tagbilaran, Bohol, and in the darkness, by
means of threat and violence had carnal knowledge with her against her will.
 Count 6: Perez, together with his Filipino companion, apprehended Natividad Barcinas, Nicanora Ralameda
and Teotima Barcinas, nurses of the provincial hospital, for not having attended a dance and reception or-
ganized in honor of Colonel Mini and other Japanese high ranking officers which was held in Tagbilaran
market on June 25, 1942; that on July 8, 1942, said nurses were forced to attend another banquet and
dance in order that the Japanese officers might make a selection which girls would suit best their fancy.
Issue: Whether or not the acts of Perez in luring women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officials constitute
treason.
Held: No.
Ratio:
 As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to ren-
der assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in further-
ance of the enemies' hostile designs. His "commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese of-
ficers or men or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor was not treason even though the
women and the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit;
he was not guilty any more than the women themselves would have been if they voluntarily and will-
ingly 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 State.
Ruling: Perez is guilty of four counts of rape and sentenced for each of them to an indeterminate penalty of
from 10 year of prision mayor to 17 year and 4 months of reclusion temporal.

Conspiracy to commit Treason

US v. Francisco Bautista
6 Phil 581
G.R. No. L-2189, November 3, 1906
Ponente: Justice Carson
Facts:
Appellants convicted in CFI Manila of conspiracy to overthrow by force US government and PH government as
defined in Act292. Francisco Bautista was sentenced with Aniceto de Guzman and Tomas Puzon to
imprisonment with fine and hard labor. During latter 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into
by Filipino residents in HK for overthrowing the government by force of arms and establishing in its stead a
government known as Republica Universal Democratica Filipina. Toward the end of 1903, Artemio Ricarte
would come to Manila from Hong Kong and hold meetings to further the conspiracy hatched in HK, like for the
plan to enlist a revolution army and raising money for it. The conspirators took to the field and offered armed
resistance, only failing because of their failure to combat and of the failure of the people to rise en masse in
response to their propaganda. Bautista, a Manila resident, was an intimate friend of Ricarte, notified by Ricarte
of his coming to Manila, Bautista giving him money for the trip, present in meetings, “held the people in
readiness.” Puzon distributed the bonds and appointed certain officials for the revolutionary forces. Puzon said
he only acted to not vex his friend, that “joking tone,” that he did not know Ricarte was organizing a conspiracy.
Issue:
Whether or not appellants are guilty.
Held:
No. Puzon himself signed a written statement at the time he was arrested saying he was part of the new
revolution presided over by Ricarte, that he was brigadier-general, chief of signal corps since they were
childhood friends. Puzon did not deny this statement. His confession was clear and in no way supports his
pretense that he was excited as not to know what he was saying when he made it. The accused voluntarily
accepted the appointment and in doing so assumed all obligations implied by such acceptance. “Mere
possession of such an appointment, when it is not shown that the possessor executed some external act by the
virtue of the same, does not constitute sufficient proof of the guilt of the defendant," applies only the case of
Enrique Camonas, against whom the only evidence of record was ‘the fact that a so-called appointment of
sergeant was found at his house.’” It may be the case that conspirators may send appoints to an unsuspecting
person in the hope that such person would accept it, and the person is entirely innocent of all intention to join.
A genuine conspiracy must be shown to exist, and it must be proven that accused voluntarily accepted the
appointment. The two-witness rule cannot apply in proving conspiracy to commit treason, only in treason.
Aniceto de Guzman cannot be convicted on his acceptance of a number of bonds from conspirators. It does not
mean he knew about the conspiracy, receiving the wrapped bonds not knowing what they were, then
destroying them thereafter.