SALINAS, Mark Ian B.

CLJ 4
Bravo – III ASSIGNMENT

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO

RACAZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [ G.R. No. L-365, January 21, 1949 ]82 Phil.
623

Facts:

Racaza was found guilty on fourteen counts of treason. The trial court found the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, superior strength, treachery and
employment of means for adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime.

Issue:

Is the finding of the trial court proper as regards the aggravating circumstances?

Decision:

No. Evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery are, by their nature, inherent
in the offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty. Adherence and the
giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is a long, continued process requiring fixed, reflective
and persistent determination and planning. Treachery is merged in superior strength. To
overcome the opposition and wipe out resistance movements, the use of a large force and
equipment was necessary. The enemy to whom the accused adhered was itself the personification
of brute, superior force, and it was this superior force which enabled him to overrun the country
and for a time subdue its inhabitants by his brutal rule.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.
FRANCISCO M. ABAD (ALIAS PAQUITO), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [ G.R.
No. L-430, July 30, 1947 ]78 Phil. 766

Facts:

Francisco Abad was found guilty on three counts of the complex crime of treason with
homicide. The information charged appellant of the crime of treason by giving aid and comfort
to the Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces. The first question raised by appellant is
that the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty on the first count, notwithstanding the fact
that only one witness testified to the overt act alleged therein.

Issue:

Is the appellant correct?

Decision:

Yes. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and every one of all the external
manifestations of the overt act in issue. Although both overt acts are inter-related, it would be too
much to strain the imagination if they should be identified as a single act or even as different
manifestations, phases, or stages of the same overt act. Although both acts may logically be
presumed to have answered the same purpose, the singleness of purpose is not enough to make
one of two acts.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO
MORALES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [ G.R. No. L-4533, May 28, 1952 ]91 Phil.
445

Facts:

Morales was charged with the crime of treason. He insists that his mere presence is not
sufficient to constitute treason.

Issue:

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Decision:

Yes. Morales was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving as a guard. During the
Japanese occupation, nobody could carry a gun freely in the presence of Japanese soldiers, unless
he was an agent of or in cahoots with the enemy. It is far-fetched to suppose that the defendant
happened to be in the place above mentioned as a mere spectator. Openly carrying a firearm,
while going with Japanese soldiers, can only be reconciled with the idea that the man was in
league with and had the confidence of the enemy.