PEOPLE VS.

CAÑA
G.R. No. L-1678. November 10, 1950.

FACTS:
Pedro Gallego and the defendant Eleuterio Caña were elected Mayor and Vice Mayor
respectively, for the town of Abuyog, Leyte. Eleuterio Caña served as puppet Mayor of the Japanese.
He forced the people to dig trenches and holes and build stables, ejected Filipino civilians in their
homes, and tell guerrillas and their relatives to surrender in order to provide aid and comfort to the
Japanese. In addition to those acts he also guided and accompanied Japanese patrols to the barrios of
Abuyog to apprehend guerrillas, guerrilla suspects and their supporters and also to locate their
hideouts, he force the people to harvest palay in the outlying farms, and did confiscate the palay taken
therefrom, giving part of it to the Japanese soldiers. He then admitted that he was and had always
been a Filipino citizen. Eleuterio Caña, was charged in the People's Court with treason under seven
counts. After trial, he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories
of the law, to pay a fine of P5,000, plus costs. The Court of Appeals is of the opinion that the penalty
applicable is reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:
Should the acts of The acts of treason of which he was accused were supposedly committed
during his incumbency as Acting Mayor of Abuyog.

RULING:
Ordinarily, in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed
in its medium degree, namely, reclusion perpetua as opined by the Court of Appeals. However, taking
a broad view of the case, we are inclined to impose a lighter penalty as did the People’s Court. We
must bear in mind that treason is not an ordinary and everyday offense which must be considered and
punished according to the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances provided
for in the Revised Penal Code. Here, there has been no killing, not even torture of prisoners, at least
not on the part of the appellant. The People’s Court may have been imbued with this same attitude and
viewpoint when it imposed an imprisonment of 15 years without making any reference to the
existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We might add that the fact that the appellant has
been in jail since the beginning of the year 1946 when he was first indicted, inclines us to take a
liberal and benign view of his case.
 PEOPLE v. JOSE ORTEGA +
[ GR No. L-5194, Nov 20, 1952 ]

FACTS:
Before the People's Court Jose Ortega was accused of treason on four (4) counts. He first
appealed to the Court of Appeals, after studying the case the Court of Appeals arrived at the
conclusion that appellant was guilty; but because the crime of treason is penalized with reclusion
temporal to death, and in view of the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, said
appellate court is of the opinion that the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree,
namely, reclusion perpetua, it certified the case to us for decision.
Counts 2 and 3 read as follows:
"(2). Ortega, for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to the Japanese Army did willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and treasonably join, accompany and lead a Japanese patrol which captured Santiago
Samaniego, a guerrilla, who was taken to the Japanese Garrison where he was severely beaten and
tortured.
"(3). Jose Ortega, with intent to give aid and comfort to the Japanese Imperial Army, accompany and
lead a Japanese patrol which captured Jesus Samaniego, a guerrilla, who like his brother Santiago was
taken to the Japanese garrison where he was severely beaten and tortured."
ISSUES:
Is Ortega guilty of Counts 2 and 3?

RULING:
In conclusion, we find the guilt of appellant under counts 2 and 3 as having been fully
established. His adherence to the enemy was also proven. In the imposition of penalties on treason
cases we have not followed strictly the rules of the Penal Code regarding the presence or absence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We consider rather the gravity or seriousness of the acts of
treason established. Where the accused has taken part in the killing and torture of persons
apprehended by the Japanese forces through him, we impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua or even
death. Where the participation of the accused consisted merely in accompanying Japanese patrols and
helping in the arrest of guerrilla suspects, we generally impose the minimum penalty which
is reclusion temporal. In the present case under the charges proven, Ortega did not take part in the
killing or torture of any person apprehended. And we agree with the trial court that the imposition of
the penalty of reclusion temporal sufficiently punishes his treasonable acts.
1 Phil 437 U.S. vs. Abad

G.R. No. L-976, October 22, 1902

Facts:

Maximo Abad was charged with violation of oath of allegiance when he denied to an officer of the
United States Army the existence of certain rifles at the time of his surrender in April 1901 when in
fact, he was aware of the existence and whereabouts of such rifles. Section 14 of Article 292 of the
United States Philippine Commission states that: "Any person who shall have taken any oath before
any military officer under the Civil Government of the Philippine Islands, whether such official so
administering the oath was specially authorized by law so to do or not, in which oath the affiant is
substance engaged to recognize or accept the supreme authority of the United States of America in
these Islands or to maintain true faith and allegiance thereto or to obey the laws, legal orders, and
decrees promulgated by its duly constituted authorities and who shall, after the passage of this act,
violate the terms and provisions of such oath or any of such terms or provisions, shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both." 
Abad is a former insurgent officer and is entitled to the benefit of the proclamation of amnesty if the
offense is one of those to which the proclamation applies. The denying of the whereabouts of the
rifles can be considered an act of treason, as being an act of adhering to the enemies of the United
States, giving them aid and comfort, the offense in this particular case might, perhaps, be held to be
covered by the amnesty as being, in substance, treason though prosecuted under another name.
Treason is defined in section 1 of Act No. 292 to consist in levying war against the United States or
the Government of the Philippine Islands, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere. Sedition is defined in section 5 of the same act as the
rising publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods certain
enumerated objects of a political character.

Issue: Whether or not the offense of violation of oaths of allegiance fall under the category of “treason
and sedition.”

 Held: Yes.

The offense of violation of oaths of allegiance, being one of the political offenses defined in Act No.
292, is included in the general words "treason and sedition," as used in the amnesty proclamation of
July 4, 1902.

The offenses listed in Act No. 292 include: treason, misprision of treason, insurrection, conspiracy to
commit treason or insurrection, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious words and libels,
the formation of secret political societies, and violation of oaths of allegiance. When the framer of the
proclamation used the words "treason and sedition" to describe the purely political offenses covered
by the amnesty, we think it was his intention, without specially enumerating the political offenses
defined in Act No. 292, to include them all under the terms “treason and sedition.” Ruling: The
defendant is entitled to the benefits of the proclamation of amnesty, and upon filing in the court the
prescribed oath the cause will be returned to the court below with directions that he be discharged.

Title: EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. PEDRO MARCAIDA, acusado-

apelante.

Facts: 
 The case is an appeal by Pedro Marcaida, who was convicted of the crime of treason. He
points out three errors incurred by the Court of Pueblo, one of which is that his citizenship was
sufficiently tested. The defense contends that the evidence of record does not prove citizenship. The
defense argues that the witness testified in Tagalog saying, "Taga Lopez", referring to Lopez, Quezon
Province, and that he was born in Lopez. However, no such thing is found in the record, therefore, his
Philippine citizenship is not properly tested. 

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant shall be convicted of treason.

Ruling:

The defendant then, according to the evidence of record, may be a Filipino or a foreigner. His
Philippine citizenship is not sufficiently tested or proven. The defendant is called Pedro Marcaida. By
his name, he can be a Filipino, Spanish or South American. There is no proof of the citizenship of his
parents. He can be a descendant of Spanish subjects who opted to remain Spanish and retain their
loyalty to the Crown of Spain, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. It may also
happen that he is a descendant of a South American, with his father refusing to use the provisions of
the naturalization law, thereby acquiring the nationality of his father. Certainly, his citizenship cannot
be ascertained. Foreigners owe allegiance to the government of America during the time of the
defendant's residence. Furthermore, Article 114 of The Revised Penal Code, which reads "Any
Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or
comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere...", is guilty of treason, has excluded the foreign nationals
in its scope. However, Executive Order No. 44, recognizing that it was not possible under the Revised
Penal Code to punish foreign residents in the Philippines that have helped the enemies, for the crime
of treason, amended Article 114, by adding the paragraph, "Likewise, any alien, residing in the
Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this article shall be
punished..." But in the case at bar, the events took place in 1944, a year before Executive Order No.
44 has taken effect on May 31, 1945. If the defendant is Filipino, owing allegiance to the
Commonwealth Government, he must be condemned for treason, but if he is a foreigner, he cannot be
punished for acts committed prior to the amendment of Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. As the
evidence clearly established that the defendant is either Filipino or a foreigner, he cannot be
criminally responsible for the crime of treason. 

RATIO: Under the first paragraph of Article 114, the offender in treason must be a Filipino citizen, as
he should not be a foreigner. Before Article 114 was amended by Executive Order No. 44, it was not
possible under the Revised Penal Code to punish for treason, resident aliens who aided the enemies.
Now, as amended, the Revised Penal Code punishes a resident alien who commits treason.

Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARTIN LAUREL (alias
MARTINIANO LAUREL), Defendant-Appellant.

Facts:

Martin Laurel was accused of treason in the People's Court under 15 counts. He is appealing from the
decision of said court finding him guilty under counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13, and sentencing him
to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P10,000, with costs, and crediting him with one-half of the
preventive imprisonment already suffered by him. There is evidence to show that in making the raids
and arrests, the appellant was almost invariably dressed in a Makapili or Japanese uniform, and that
the persons arrested were suspected as guerrilla. Moreover, oftentimes, the raiders including the
defendant were accompanied or commanded by Japanese.chanroblesvirtualawlibAppellant's counsel
also contends that although his client admitted during the trial that he was a Filipino citizen, there is
no showing that he was a Filipino at the time that he committed the acts of treason imputed to him.
Issue:

Whether Martin Laurel is considered to be a Filipino

Ruling:

Yes, Martin Laurel is considered to be a Filipino. His being a Filipino citizen may be proved by his
prison record which sets out his personal circumstances properly identified as having been filled out
with data supplied by the accused himself. 

Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORENZO MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Facts: 

On or about December 12, 1944, in San Miguel, Bulacan, the above-named accused Lorenzo Morales,
then a member of the MAKAPILI organization, for the purpose of giving and with intent to give aid
and/or comfort to the enemy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously lead, join, and
accompany a group of Japanese soldiers and other MAKAPILI members in a raid in barrio Santa
Lucia, San Miguel, Bulacan, resulting in the capture and apprehension of Maximo Ramos, Alejo
Velayo, Rufino Velayo, Ricardo Velayo, Fermin Chico, Bonifacio de Jesus, and Arsenio Pacheco, all
guerrillas, and in the confiscation of 112 rounds of ammunitions and clothing of said Bonifacio de
Jesus; and thereafter all the above-named persons were taken to the Japanese garrison in San Miguel,
Bulacan, where they were beaten, maltreated and detained for a period of 22 days after which
Bonifacio de Jesus was released, Maximo Ramos was able to escape, and Alejo Velayo, Rufino
Velayo, Ricardo Velayo, Fermin Chico and Arsenio Pacheco were killed." After trial, the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan rendered a decision finding the defendant guilty as charged, and sentencing
him to imprisonment for 20 years, reclusion temporal, and to a fine of P10,000, plus the costs. From
this decision, the defendant appealed.

Appellant also insists that his mere presence is not sufficient to constitute treason. It appears,
however, that he 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.
"We think it far-fetched to suppose that the defendant happened to be in the place above mentioned as
a mere spectator or by accident. 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.

Issue: 

Whether the appellant is a Filipino citizen 

Ruling:

Yes, Lorenzo Morales is a Filipino Citizen. Appellant’s Filipino citizenship was proven by certified
true copies of his identification record card and certificate of citizenship, the originals of which were
on file in the Bureau of Prisons. Since they were official records, it was not necessary to identify
them. 

Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Facts: 

An appeal taken by the defendant, Joaquin Flavier, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Quezon, finding him guilty of treason and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with legal
accessories, and to pay a fine of P15,000. Counsel for appellant argues that appellant’s citizenship
was not duly proven and that none of the overt acts charged against him and of which he was
convicted by the trial court is supported by the evidence.

Issue: 

Whether the appellant is considered to be a Filipino

Ruling:

Yes, Flavier is a Filipino. The Filipino citizenship of the appellant was satisfactorily shown by the
Bureau of Prisons official record, which was admitted in evidence without appellant’s objection, and
by the testimony of witnesses who knew the appellant to have been born in the Philippines of Filipino
parents.
Case Title: People vs. Adriano

General Registry Number: L-477

Date: June 30, 1947

Facts:

Between January and April, 1945, during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese Imperial
Forces, in the Province of Nueva Ecija, the above-named accused, Apolinar Adriano, a Filipino
citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, giving the
said enemy aid and comfort in the manner as a “member of the Makapili, a military organization
established and designed to assist and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines. 

The prosecution did not introduce any evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except that of
defendant's having joined the Makapili organization. What the People's Court found is that the
accused participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in confiscation of personal property.
The acts of the accused had not been established by the testimony of two witnesses.

Issue:

Whether or not the two-witness rule is required in establishing the guilt of the accused in the crime of
treason?

Ruling:

         Yes.

         Under the law, the two-witness rule is required for conviction for treason so that no person
shall be convicted thereof unless on the testimony of two-witnesses to the same overt act.  If the overt
act is separate, two (2) witnesses must also testify to each part of overt act for conviction.
         In this case, the findings of the court are not borne out by the proof of two witnesses. No two
of the prosecution witnesses testified to a single one of the various acts of treason imputed by them to
the appellant. Those who gave evidence that the accused took part in raids and seizure of personal
property, and performed sentry duties and military drills, referred to acts allegedly committed on
different dates without any two witnesses coinciding in any one specified deed. There is only one item
on which the witnesses agree: it is that the defendant was a Makapili and was seen by them in
Makapili uniform carrying arms. Yet, again, on this point it cannot be said that one witness is
corroborated by another if corroboration means that two witnesses have seen the accused doing at
least one particular thing, it a routine military chore, or just walking or eating. Thus, the two-witness
rule is required in establishing the guilt of a person accused of the crime of treason.

Case Title: Laurel vs. Misa

General Registry Number: L-409

Date: January 30, 1947

Facts:

Anastacio 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 reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
consequently, the correlative allegiance 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:

         Whether or not the allegiance of Filipinos is suspended during enemy occupation?

Ruling:

         No.

         Under the law, a citizen or subject owes absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists of
fidelity and obedience, to his government or sovereign. On the other hand, foreigners owe permanent
allegiance to their own country while owing temporary allegiance to the country they reside in.

         In this case, this absolute and permanent allegiance of citizens is not abrogated or severed by
the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not
transferred thereby to the occupier. Sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during enemy
occupation; what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, the same being passed
temporarily to the occupant. In effect, the allegiance of the citizens to their legitimate government or
sovereign subsists, hence, there is no such thing as suspended allegiance as theorized by Laurel.
Case Title: U.S. vs. De los Reyes

General Registry Number: 1434

Date: February 23, 1904

Facts:

The defendant is charged with the crime of treason, committed as follows:

·         That on November 21, 1902, in Manila, he did feloniously, treasonably, etc., levy war against,
adhere to and give aid and comfort to the enemies of, the United States and of the Philippine Islands,
in that on or about August 30, 1902, he accepted a commission in the regular army of the "Filipinos
Republic" and served as a captain and carried arms in such army and continued in such office and
continued to carry arms as aforesaid between the said dates of August 30, 1902, and November 21,
1902, the said "Filipinos Republic" being as attempted government organized by various persons
against the authority of the United States Government and that of the Philippine Islands and having
for its object the overthrow by armed insurrection of the regularly constituted government in said
Islands.

The defendant was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to imprisonment
for a term of twenty years and to pay a fine of $5,000.

Issue:

         Whether or not the acceptance of a commission is an implication of overt acts of treason?

        

Ruling:

         No.

         Under the law, there must be an actual assembly of men in order for there to be treason by
levying war.

         In this case, the Constabulary officers only found a captain’s commission under seal when
searching the house of the accused from the secretary of war of the Katipunan society. Mere
acceptance of the commission does not necessarily mean that there was any overt act of treason done
within the meaning of the law. There is no other evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the act of
treason by the defendant. Thus, his acceptance of the commission does not make him liable for any
overt act of treason.

US VS. LAGNASON

 
FACTS:

On October 29, 1902, Dalmacio LAgnason (defendant) with his band (“Babaylanes” which camped in
the northern part) of men in arms against the Government of the United States made an attack upon
the pueblo of Murica in Province of Occidental Negros. They were however driven off by the force of
Constabulary.

Two inspectors of the Constabulary arrived with additional forces and left the pueblo in search of the
defendant. They located him about three kilometers from the pueblo. Their flight lasted an hour and a
half. The defendant was captured in battle and had a Springfield rifle, a revolver, and a talibon. About
twenty of his men were killed. On the side of the Constabulary, two policemen of the vicinity
(Tranquilano Toscano and Lazaro Quiachon) who were acting as guides were killed.

The defendant’s band consisted of 70-80 men who had for arms five or ten rifles, bolos, dagger, and
one small cannon. They wore black shirts, white pantaloons, and black caps. They carried no banners,
but did carry two large wooden crosses which were captured together with the canon.

ISSUE:

Whether or no their acts constitute a levying of war?

RULING:

YES, the acts of violence committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of overthrowing the
Government was “Levying war against the United States' ' was treason, whether it was done by ten
men or thousand men. No distinction was anywhere made between a foreign enemy and a rebel or
insurgent so far as the act of “levying of war” is concerned.

The defendant was engaged in an attempt to overthrow the Government and was captured after an
armed contest. It does not matter how vain and futile his attempt was, the acts performed by him
constituted a levying of war.

People v Agoncillo, 80 Phil 33

Facts:

In the middle of April, 1944, the appellant sold about 300 kilos of alum crystals, at three pesos a kilo
to the Keribo, a construction company operated by the Japanese Army. Two or three weeks
threreafter, he sold to the same entity some 100 pieces of water pipes, the price of which was not
known. About the third week of December 1944, the appellant was seen on Jones Avenue helping
push a handcart full of truck and auto tires, batteries and spare parts into the intermediate or high
school premises then used by the Japanese Army as a motor pool.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellant, Dionisio Agoncillo is guilty of treason.

Held:
No. The Court is of the opinion that the overt acts imputed by the appellant have not been duly
proven. With respect to the sale of 300 kilos of alum crystals, the testimony of the prosecution witness
Lorenze Barria to the effect that the price was P3 a kilo, is not corroborated by any other witness.
With respect to the alleged sale of 100 pieces of water pipes, counsel for the appellee admits that the
price thereof was not known. An essential part of the overt acts charge in the information was lacking.

The sale to the enemy of alum crystals and water pipes does not per se constitute treason, because said
articles or materials are not exclusively for war purposes and their sale does not necessarily carry an
intention on the part of the vendor to adhere to the enemy.  It is not unlikely that at the time the
appellant made the sale, his motive was purely personal gain, uninfluenced by any benefit to the
enemy. Where two probabilities arise from the evidence the one compatible with the presumption of
innocence will be adopted.

People v Mangahas, 93 Phil 1113

Facts:

On December 13, 1944, Makapilis raided Lawang, Norzagaray and apprehended several guerilla
members. The Makapilis also stationed themselves in fron of the municipal building. Among them
were Cayetano and Mariano Mangahas, with which they surrounded the house of Enriqueta dela
Merced, went up and took and brought to the garrison of the Makapilis near the Municipal building
foodstuffs intended for the guerillas, consisting of 5 sacks of rice, 2 cans of salted beef, a basketful of
camote and another of tomatoes, a small bag of salt and a half sack of sardines, salmon and corned
beef. Enriqueta dela Merced and Engracia dela Cruz testified to the foregoing overt acts. On
December 29, 1944, a group of armed Makapilis, among whom were defendants, took and carried
away rice, shoes, helmet, clothes, and anything they could get hold in the house of Primo S. Cruz and
at the same time apprehended him and brought him to the San Jose garrison where Japanese soldiers
were stationed and since then Cruz has not returned and has not been seen. A similar tragedy befell
Artemio Nicolas, who was tied up and brough to the San Jose garrisonby the defendants. Each of their
wives testified to each of the arrest of their respective husbands. On December 30,1944, Moises
Legaspi was brought to the garrison of the Makapilis by five persons, among whom were the
defendants. His wife and son testified to the foregoing acts. Cayetano Mangahas and Mariano delos
Santos Mangahas were charged with treason at the Court of First Instance in Bulacan. Both the
defendants have appealed the decision of the lower court.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crime of treason?

Held:

Yes. The arrest of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas cannot be deemed sufficient to constitute
treason for lack of two witnesses, because the arrest of both persons is established only by testimony
of their widows, to each, respectively. Nevertheless, it is a proof of adherence to the enemy. However,
there is no merit in the argument because there is no evidence that the defendants acted as informers
or that there were responsible for the arrest of Moises Legaspi. The evidence is insufficient to support
a conviction for treason. There is no doubt that the defendants were present when they arrested
Moises Legaspi at his house. A mere denial by Cayetano Mangahas that he was with those who
arrested Moises Legaspi is not sufficient to outweigh the testimony of the latter’s wife and son who
pointed to the defendants as among the five makapilis who apprehended Moises Legaspi. The claim
that there is no proof of adherence to the enemy is without merit. The acts of arresting guerillas,
commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around town carrying
firearms, are more than sufficient proofs of adherence to the enemy. Moreover, Cayetano Mangahas’
testimony that e was not present when the house of Enriqueta dela Merced was raided, cannot prevail
over the testimony pf the latter and Egnracia dela Cruz who on that occasion saw the defendants
among the raiders. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affiremed by the Supreme Court. 

People v. Paar, 86 Phil. 864

FACTS: Teofilo Paar was a member of the Military Police of Baguio. During the Japanese
occupation, Paar joined Kempei Tai, the most hated Japanese group. His direct participation in the
activities of Kempei Tai, for whom he was acting as agent or undercover man, having been observed
by the witnesses for the prosecution, showed treasonous adherence. Paar participated in the arrest of
several persons who were subsequently deprived of their freedom and tortured on suspicion because
they were sympathetic with the underground forces. Teofilo Paar was found guilty by the Peoples
Court for the crime of treason and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and fine of
P10,000 and the costs.

ISSUE: WON Paar gave aid and comfort to the Japanese Government.

HELD: Yes. Accuseds activities of giving information to the enemy, constitutes adherence, aid and
comfort.

 
People v. Mangahas, 93 Phil. 1113

FACTS: On December 13, 1944, Makapilis raided Lawang, Norzagaray, and apprehended several
guerrilla members. The Makapilis also stationed themselves in front of the municipal building.
Among them were Cayetano and Mariano Mangahas, with which they surrounded the house of
Enriqueta de la Merced, went up and took and brought to the garrison of the Makapilis near the
municipal building food stuffs intended for the guerillas, consisting of 5 sacks of rice, 2 cans of salted
beef, a basketful of camote and another of tomatoes, a small bag of salt and a half sack of sardines,
salmon and corned beef. Enriquetade la Merced and Engracia de la Cruz testified to the foregoing
overt acts. On December 29, 1944, a group of armed Makapilis, among whom were the defendants,
took and carried away rice, shoes, helmet, clothes and anything they could get hold in the house of
Primo S. Cruz and at the same time apprehended him and brought him to the San Jose garrison where
Japanese soldiers were stationed and since then Cruz has not returned and has not been seen. A
similar tragedy befell Artemio Nicolas, who was tied up and brought to the San Jose garrison by the
defendants. Each of their wives testified to each of the arrests of their respective husbands. On
December 30, 1944, Moises Legaspi was brought to the garrison of the Makapilis by five persons,
among whom were the defendants. His wife and son testified to the foregoing acts. Cayetano
Mangahas and Mariano de los Santos Mangahas were charged with treason at the Court of First
Instance in Bulacan. Both the defendants have appealed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crime of treason

RULING: Yes. The arrest of Primo S. Cruz and Artemio Nicolas cannot be deemed sufficient to
constitute treason for lack of two witnesses, because the arrest of both persons is established only by
the testimony of their widows, to each, respectively. Nevertheless, it is a proof of adherence to the
enemy. However, there is no merit in the argument that because there is no evidence that the
defendants acted as informers or that they were responsible for the arrest of Moises Legaspi, the
evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for treason. There is no doubt that the defendants were
present when they arrested Moises Legaspi at his house. A mere denial by Cayetano Mangahas that he
was with those whoarrested Moises Legaspi is not sufficient to outweigh the testimony of the latter's
wife and son who pointed to the defendants as among the five Makapilis who apprehended Moises
Legaspi. The claim thatthere is no proof of adherence to the enemy is without merit. The acts of
arresting guerillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry work, drilling in the plaza, going around
town carrying firearms,are more than sufficient proofs of adherence to the enemy. Moreover,
Cayetano Mangahas' testimony that he was not present when the house of Enriqueta de la Merced was
raided, cannot prevail over the testimony of the latter and Engracia de la Cruz who on that occasion
saw the defendants among the raiders. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed by the
Supreme Court.

People v. Perez, 83 Phil. 314-315

FACTS: Accused Perez was charged with treason and rape. The accused kidnapped several women in
order to present them to a Japanese Commander to satisfy the latters carnal pleasure against the will of
the women. In some instances, the accused himself raped several women.  The Court ruled that the
accused was acquitted in relation to the crime of treason; but, he was found guilty in relation to the
crime of rape. The acts of the accused in relation with the Japanese didn’t directly and materially tend
to improve the war efforts or to weaken the power of the United States. Moreover, intent of disloyalty
which is essential in the crime of treason is lacking. Nevertheless, the accused can be held liable for
the several counts of rape he committed. Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez aka
Kid Perez, the accused, for recruiting, apprehending, and commandeering women (Eriberta Ramo,
Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, and Flaviana Bonalos) against their will to satisfy the immoral
purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini, and other Japanese of Officers. Only counts 1,2,4,5,6 were
substantiated. In the 4th and 5th counts, the accused personally assaulted and abused two of the
offended girls. Susano Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to death by electrocution by the
Peoples Court.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of the accused constitute a crime of treason

Ruling: NO. There is a dilemma in trying to draw a line between treasonable and untreasonable
assistance, since the scope of adherence to the enemy is comprehensive, and its requirement
indeterminate, but as a general rule acts providing aid and comfort to the enemies are considered
treasonable when the aid and comfort rendered are directed to them as enemies not as mere
individuals. To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend so that he may buy personal necessities is
not technically traitorous, but to lend or give money to an enemy to enable him to buy arms or
ammunition to use against the government of the giver is treason. The act of the accused of providing
the enemies with women and entertainment, boosting their (the enemies) morale and making their
lives more pleasant, is not treason. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and
materially tend to improve their war efforts or weaken the power of the government. Any favorable
effect toward the Japanese that the accused might have made was trivial, imperceptible and
unintentional. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which in the absence of
admission may be gathered from the nature and circumstances of each case. In this particular case, it
was not evident that the intent of the accused in providing the enemies with women was to help them
overthrow the government.
Cramer V. US 65 Sup. Ct. 918 April 23, 1945

Facts: Anthony Cramer, a German by birth, had been residing in the United States since 1925 and was
naturalized in 1936. However, he had a strong connection to his homeland. He openly opposed the
participation of the United States in World War II and refused to work on war materials. He also
feared being drafted but otherwise, no proof existed that he acted the disloyalty to the United States.

One day, Cramer received a cryptic note under his door instructing him to go to Grand Central Station
in New York. The note was from Werner Thiel, who previously worked with Cramer but returned to
Germany to fight for the Nazis. Cramer and Thiel spent time together. However, Cramer denied
knowing that the main reason Thiel returned to the United States was to sabotage the American war
effort. Cramer also worked to match Thiel up with Thiel’s former fiancé. But after the second of these
meetings, Thiel and his co-saboteur, who was present briefly at one meeting, were arrested. Shortly
after, Cramer was arrested, tried, and found guilty.

Issue: Whether or not Cramer is guilty of Treason.

Ruling: Cramer is not guilty of treason. The court held that the crime of treason has two elements: (1)
adherence to the enemy and (2) giving aid or comfort. Additionally, the accused must have more than
an intent to betray and the traitor must translate the intent into action. Each act must have two
witnesses. The act of adherence must confer some actual, tangible benefit on the enemy. The Court
found none of that. There was no proof by two witnesses of what they said, or in what language they
conversed;. No one could show that Cramer gave them any information whatever of value to their
mission, or that he had any to give. No one could show any effort at secrecy because they met in
public places. Lastly, no evidence existed that Cramer furnished them shelter, sustenance, or supplies.
He also did not give them encouragement or counsel.
People v. Alarcon 78 Phil 733

Facts: Fifty-two (52) tenants in Floridablanca, Pampanga, have been charged and convicted on a
trumped up charge of robbery in band because they took each a few cavans of palay for which they
issued the corresponding receipts, from the bodega in the hacienda where they are working. These
tenants contend that they have the right to take the palay for their food as the hacienda owner has the
obligation to give them rations of palay for their maintenance and their families to be paid later with
their share of their crop. But this is not all. When the convicted tenants appealed the case and were
released on bail pending their appeal, court and public officials exerted pressure upon one of their
bondsmen, as this bondsman informed the tenants, to withdraw his bail for them, and the fifty-two
tenants were arrested again and put in jail. A denunciatory letter, signed by Luis M. Taruc, was
addressed to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines. A copy of said letter found its way to
the herein respondent, Federico Mañgahas who, as columnist of the Tribune, a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, quoted the letter in an article published by him in the issue of that paper
of September 23, 1937. The objectionable portion is inserted in the following petition of the
provincial fiscal of Pampanga, The lower court ordered the respondent to appear and show cause.
That the publication of the letter in question is in line with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
the press. Respondent Mañgahas appealed from this order to the Court of Appeals, which later
certified the case to this Court as involving only a question of law, assigning the following errors
allegedly committed by the trial court: 1. The lower court erred in finding the respondent guilty of
contempt of court. 2. The lower court erred in taking jurisdiction of the motion for contempt.

Issue: 1. Whether or not the publication made by Mangahas contempt’s the court?

2. Whether or not appellate court has jurisdiction to punish contempts committed against the Court of
Appeals?

Ruling:

1. NO, Contempt of court is in the nature of a criminal offense, and in considering the probable effects
of the article alleged to be contemptuous, every fair and reasonable inference consistent with the
theory of defendant’s innocence will be indulged, and where a reasonable doubt in fact or in law
exists as to the guilt of one of constructive contempt for interfering with the due administration of
justice the doubt must be resolved in his favor, and he must be acquitted.

2. YES, one court is not an agent or representative of another and may not, for this reason, punish
contempt’s in vindication of the authority and decorum which are not its own. The appeal transfers the
proceedings to the appellate court, and this last court becomes thereby charged with the authority to
deal with contempt’s committed after the perfection of the appeal.

THE PEOPLE Of THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,VS.SUSANO PEREZ

(ALIAS KID PEREZ), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. 83 Phil 314

Facts: 

Perez furnished women for immoral purposes to the enemies. He was convicted of treason.

Issue: 
Can Perez be held guilty of treason?

Ruling: 

No. The law of treason does not proscribe all kinds of social, business and political intercourse
between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its inhabitants. What aid and comfort
constitute treason must depend upon their nature; degree and purpose. As a general rule, to be
treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them
as enemies and not merely as individuals, and, in addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies'
hostile designs. 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 States.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,VS.JOSE FERNANDO,

DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Facts:

Fernando was found guilty of the crime of treason. He claimed that he was forced into the service of
the Kempei-tai" the Japanese military police organization.

Issue: 

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Ruling: 

Yes, while appellant was undergoing detention and maltreatment for his alleged connection with the
resistance movement, the Japanese should, without much ceremony, upon appellant's show of
willingness to abide by their order to serve them, release him, provide him with firearms, and put
under his charge a group of Filipino informers in the service of the Kempei-tai. To place appellant in
such a responsible position, full of opportunity and means either of helping the Japanese or sabotaging
their military efforts, appellant must beforehand have shown them strong evidence of adherence and
loyalty for the Japanese to trust him.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,VS.FORTUNATO MUNOZ

(ALIAS FORTUNATO VIZCARRA),DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.79 Phil. 719

Facts:

Munoz was found guilty of treason. He alleged his presence at about one hundred yards from the
raided hideout was due not to his own will but to the fact that the Japanese brought him to the place to
carry food, with hands tied at his back.

Issue: 

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Ruling: 

No. The inherent inverisimilitude of appellant's testimony is evident. There was no reason for the
Japanese to carry food not needed for such a short expedition and it is inconceivable that they should
let him bring them on his shoulders with his hands tied and as prisoner, needing to be guarded by
soldiers who had to fight against the guerrillas. By said testimony, it appears absolutely certain that
appellant had voluntarily rendered effective service as an agent of the Japanese. Even crediting to him
whatever benefits some individuals, including his witnesses, derived from the help he rendered them,
the fact that he was able to help them shows his influence upon the Japanese, gained through his
usefulness to them.

ThE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,VS.ARSENIA NUNEZ,

DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
85 Phil. 448

Facts: 

Nunez was convicted of the crime of treason and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The counsel for the defendant pleaded the attendance of the privileged mitigating circumstance of the
minority when she committed those treasonable acts.

Issue: 

Was the penalty proper?

Decision: 

No. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, when the culprit is over 15 and under 18 years of age,
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period,
upon this culprit. Treason is punished by reclusion temporal to death. According to the rules for
graduating penalties provided in Article 61 of the Revised Penal Code, "when the penalty prescribed
for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be
imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the
lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale." In this instance, the penalty next
lower in degree is prision mayor, to be imposed in its medium period, on account of the absence of
modifying circumstances.
 

THE PEOPLE OF THE PILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,VS.FLORENTINO CANIBAS,

DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
85 Phil. 469

Facts:

Canibas was found guilty of treason on two counts. The first count has not been established by the
oaths of at least two witnesses.There are no two direct witnesses to any of the component parts that
made up the whole overt act of appellantEs membership in the Makapili.

Issue:

Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Ruling:
Yes. The testimony on this branch of the case is sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy.
Adherence, unlike overt acts" need not be proved by two witnesses. Clear intent and Knowledge may
be gathered from the testimony of one of the witnesses, or from the nature of the act itself, or from the
circumstances surrounding the act.
 People V Dumapit 84 Phil 698
 
 
Facts:
 

1.      This is an appeal from a judgment of the People's Court finding the appellant, Policarpio Dumapit,
guilty of treason and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, a fine of ten thousand
pesos, and the costs.

2.     Appellant, Policarpio Dumapit was found guilty of treason and was penalize with reclusion perpetua.
He was charged of six counts, but the People’s Court based appellant’s conviction only on count 4
and 6. The appellant is alleged to have caused, with the aid of a group of constabulary soldiers, that 8
guerrillas were investigated and tortured by the soldiers and the Japanese. But in the information
gathered there was insufficient evidence that Policarpio Dumapit committed treason:

 In Count 4, 3 victims were presented but two of them admitted that they were investigated
for, and was suspected of arson, the other victim however admitted that the appellant helped
him and his companions to be released. In Count 6, there was only one witness for the
prosecution.

 Issue:

  Whether or not defendant-appellant is guilty of treason?

 Held:

         No. The defendant-appellant is not guilty of treason. Aside from the fact that the appellant
denied having had any hand in the arrest in question, the circumstance remains that said arrest was
effected as a result of the common crime of arson. The matter had no treasonous significance and
those arrested were confined for almost the whole period of their detention in the provincial jail, and
not in the Japanese garrison. The Supreme Court ruled that the appealed judgment be reversed and the
appellant be acquitted.

 
 Cramer V US
 
Facts:
 
 

1.      In the present case, the Petitioner is Anthony Cramer, a German-born mechanic who had an
association with two Germans, namely, Werner Thiel and Edward Kerling, one of whom he had prior
business dealings with. The two of his associates were later found to be indulged in Operation
Pastorius and were present in the United States for the sole purpose of sabotage against the
Government.

2.     On the basis of this association of the Petitioner with the named Germans, Cramer was also arrested
aftermath the failure of the operation Pastorius to which in 1942, the High Court of the United States
convicted him for the case of treason against the Government on the grounds that he adhered to
enemies of the United States by giving them aid and comfort. He was awarded the imprisonment of
45 years in prison along with a fine of $10,000.

3.     Later, the Petitioner appealed against his conviction before the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, where the court upheld his conviction. Consequent to this, the Petitioner filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court, as his last resort and the Apex Court granted him Certiorari on November
8, 1943.

4.     The case was originally argued before the Supreme Court on March 9, 1944; reargued on November
6, 1944; and the final judgment was decided on April 23, 1945.  On behalf of the Petitioner, Harold
Medina, a future Federal judge, appeared before the Supreme Court while Solicitor General Charles
Fahy was acting on behalf of the U.S government, defending their action against the Petitioner.

 
Issue

  Whether or not defendant-appellant is guilty of treason.?

 Held:

         Yes. The Supreme Court upon review of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
Cramer’s conviction upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, affirming Cramer’s conviction by giving a 5–4 decision written by Justice
Robert Jackson, which is briefly reproduced as under:
 a.     In a prosecution upon an indictment charging treason by adhering to enemies of the
United States, giving them aid and comfort, in violation of § 1 of the Criminal Code, the
overt act relied on, of which the Constitution requires proof by two witnesses, must be at
least an act of the accused sufficient, in its setting, to sustain a finding that the accused
actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

b.     The protection of the two-witness rule of the Constitution in such case extends at least to
all acts of the defendant which are used to draw incriminating inferences that aid and
comfort have been given.

c.     In a prosecution upon an indictment charging Cramer with the case of treason for
adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, which stands in
violation of section 1 of the Criminal Code, the two of the Petitioner’s overt acts which
were alleged and relied.

 
 People V Prieto 80 Phil 138

 Facts:

1.      Eduardo Prieto was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7 counts. Being a member of the
Japanese Military Police and acting as an undercover man for the Japanese forces, he guided a patrol
of Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers to apprehend Abraham Puno, who was then severely
tortured by placing red hot iron on his shoulders, legs and back, before he was sent back to the
Japanese detention camp in Mandaue.

2.      Two witnesses gave evidence but their statements do not coincide in any single detail. The first
witness testified that the accused with other Filipino undercovers and Japanese soldiers caught an
American aviator and had the witness carry the American to town on a sled pulled by a carabao. That
on the way, the accused walked behind the sled and asked the prisoner if the sled was faster than the
airplane; that the American was taken to the Kempetai headquarters, after which he did not know
what happened to the flier.

3.     The next witness, testified that he saw the accused following an American and the accused were
Japanese and other Filipinos.

4.     The lower court believes that the accused is “guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of treason
complexed by murder and physical injuries”, with “the aggravating circumstances mentioned above”.
Apparently, the court has regarded the murders and physical injuries charged in the information, not
only as crimes distinct from treason but also as modifying circumstances. The Solicitor General
agrees with the decision except as to the technical designation of the crime. In his opinion, the offense
committed by the appellant is a “complex crime of treason with homicide”.

5.     Accused being a member of the Japanese Military Police and acting as undercover man for the
Japanese forces with the purpose of giving and with the intent to give aid and comfort feloniously and
treasonably lad, guide and accompany a patrol of Japanese soldiers and Filipino undercovers for the
purpose of apprehending guerillas and locating their hideouts.

 
Issue

 Whether or not the “two-witness” rule was sufficiently complied?

Held:

           NO, it was not sufficiently complied. The witnesses evidently referred to two different
occasions. The two witnesses failed to corroborate each other not only on the whole overt act but on
any part of it.

People V Villanueva 104 Phil 450

Facts:
 
 The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation, appellant, who is a Filipino
citizen, and owing allegiance to the United States of America and the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, gave the enemy aid and comfort by rendering service with the Japanese Imperial Army as
secret agent, informer and spy, of its Detective Force in the province of Iloilo. The appellant put up
the defense of duress allegedly exerted by the Japanese upon him for which he had to serve in the
detective force of the Japanese Army.

  Issue

 Whether or not the appellant be held guilty of treason?

 Held:

           NO, except the lone and self-serving testimony of the appellant that he was coerced to
cooperate with and serve the Japanese soldiers, there is not an iota of proof that he was in fact
compelled or coerced by the Japanese. Much less is there any evidence showing that the alleged
compulsion or coercion was grave and imminent.

People vs. Abad, 78 phil 766

Facts:
 

1. Francisco Abad was found guilty with 3 counts of treason by giving aid and comfort to the
Empire of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces. 
2. In the first count, the prosecution presented as witness Magno Ibarra and his wife, Isabel.
Isabel testified that Francisco, accompanied by his brother and Japanese soldiers, went to their
 house and demanded Magno’s surrender of their revolver. Moreover, Magno testified that
Francisco demanded him to produce the revolver while at the garrison.
3. In his appeal, Francisco raised that the lower court erred in finding him guilty on the first
count because there was only a single witness to the overt acts of treason alleged. Magno
could not corroborate Isabel’s statement as to Francisco’s coming to their house because
Magno was not there at the time. Also, Isabel could not corroborate Magno’s statement
because she was not there at the time.
4. The Solicitor General advances the theory that where the overt act is simple, continuous and
composite, made up of, or proved by several circumstances, and passing through stages, it is
not necessary that there should be two witnesses to each circumstance at each stage.

  Issue

 Whether or not the Solicitor General is correct ?

 Held:

           No. The theory is not well taken. The two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and
everyone of all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue. Appellant's going to the Ibarra
house, in search of the revolver, is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellant's overt
act in requiring Magno Ibarra, when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver. 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 stage of the same overt act.
The searching of the revolver in the Ibarra house is one thing and the requiring to produce the
revolver in the garrison, another. Although both acts may logically be presumed to have answered the
same purpose, that of confiscating Ibarra's revolver, the singleness of purpose is not enough to make
one of two acts.

People v. Vilo 82 Phil 524

FACTS:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the People’s Court convicting the appellant, Roman Vilo, of the
complex crime of treason with murder and imposing ‘upon him the death penalty and a fine of
P10,000 with costs.

Appellant’s attorney de oficio admits that the People’s Court correctly found the appellant guilty of
the following overt acts: (1). The apprehension and torture on April 15, 1944, in Carcar, Cebu, of
Amando Satorre, Ireneo Medel, Maximo Satorre and Eusebio Rezada, and the killing of Amando
Satorre, all due to their connection with resistance movement, (2) The apprehension on April 15,
1944, in Carcar, Cebu, of Laureano Raponoya, suspected guerrilla member, and his delivery to the
Japanese who tortured him. (3) The apprehension, torture and killing of one Segundo in March, 1944,
in Pinamungahan, Cebu, because the latter was a guerrilla volunteer guard. And the only plea invoked
on behalf of the appellant is that he acted under duress.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the murder as an element can be subject of a separate punishment.

RULING:

Yes. The Court ruled that the crime of murder cannot be the subject of a separate punishment, or used
in combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides. 

People V. Navea 87 Phil 1

FACTS:

Lieutenant Leslie of the American Air Force who bailed out from his plane between Binangonan and
Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The capturing party delivered the flier to the Japanese soldiers who liquidated him.
The witnesses for the prosecution presented in support of this count were unanimous in testifying that
the only part taken by the appellant was to pilot the banca in which the capturing party of Lieutenant
Leslie rode. The evidence for the defense tends to show the appellant was compelled to pilot the
banca by the Japanese soldiers.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of treason.

RULING:

Yes, the appellant is guilty under counts No. 2 and 4. 

At least two witnesses testified in support. As pointed out in the lengthy brief of appellant's counsel de
oficio, there are some discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witness, but as they refer to
minor details, said discrepancies rather lead to the conclusion that the witnesses were not fabricated.
In view of the lapse of time and different capacities for observation, the witnesses cannot be expected
to recall with accuracy or uniformity minor matters connected to the main overt acts. The trial court
saw and observed the witnesses during the trial, and found no good reason for overruling said court
when it gave weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and refused to believe the
testimony of the witnesses for the defense. At any rate, the witnesses for the prosecution have not
been shown to have had any motive for falsely testifying against the appellant.

The Solicitor General recommends that the appellant be sentenced for the complex crime of treason
with murder. 

It was ruled, however, that where, as in the present case, the killing is charged as an element of
treason it "becomes identified with the latter crime and cannot be the subject of a separate
punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code provides."

People V. Adlawan 83 Phil 194

FACTS:

Appellant Adlawan pleaded guilty to a complaint against him. Said complaint states that during the
year 1943 to 1945, Adlawan adhered to the enemy, the Empire of Japan and its Imperial Japanese
forces, with treasonable intent to give aid and comfort to said enemy by going out on numerous
patrols in company with Japanese forces in search of guerilla and other elements resisting the enemy
of the Philippines. In the course of doing so, Adlawan also committed murder, torture, robbery, and
rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Adlawan complex crime of treason with murder, robbery and rape.

RULING:

The People’s Court convicted Adlawan guilty of the complex crime of treason with murder, robbery
and rape. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of death and fine of P20,000.00. Upon review before
the Supreme Court Adlawan assailed the conviction and the lower court should have appreciated his
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, that he is a witness utilized by the CIC and that he
saved many civilian lives from the Japanese forces. He further states that the lower court erred in
appreciating the aggravating circumstances treachery, murder, abuse of superiority and unnecessary
cruelty.

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the lower court to the extent that the penalty to be
imposed is reclusion perpetua and fine of P20,000.00.
RATIONALE:

The Supreme Court said that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior
strength should not have been considered. These are by their nature inherent in the offense of treason.
However, the facts show that in committing treason, appellant augmented the wrong by being cruel to
captured guerilla suspects, subjecting them to torture and death. He also chose to add ignominy by
stripping off the clothes of a guerilla suspect’s wife and abusing them with other Filipino girls. These
two aggravating circumstances of unnecessary cruelty and ignominy may be appreciated.
The penalty for the crime of treason is reclusion perpetua to death, and a fine not to exceed P20,000.
Appellant is given the benefit of voluntary confession of guilt, but appreciating against him the
aggravating circumstances of unnecessary cruelty and ignominy, the penalty should be imposed in its
maximum. However, five members of the court opposed the death penalty.

People V Butawan 83 Phil 440

FACTS: 

The appellant is charged with having adhered to the enemy and given her aid and comfort by serving
as a detachment commander of the Bureau of Constabulary under the Japanese Military Forces. Under
count No. 5, the appellant is charged with having shot and killed at about 7 o’clock in the morning of
January 18, 1944, Zoilo Calimutan, a member of the guerrilla organization known as the "Bolo
Battalion," while the latter was distilling tuba near his house in Rosario, Cortes, Bohol, with his back
towards the appellant. Under count No. 6, the appellant is accused of having apprehended, maltreated
and tortured, on February 22, 1944, Gabriel Lumba, Maximo Buyo and Apolinario Igpit, also
members of the "Bolo Battalion."

The overt acts were proved by the testimony of two or more witnesses who have not been
demonstrated to have had any motive for incriminating the appellant. Adherence to the enemy is to be
inferred from the fact that when said overt acts were committed, he was in company of Japanese
soldiers and constabulary patrols, and from the fact that the victims were guerrillas. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Troadio Butawan is guilty of the crime of treason with murder and illegal detention.

RULING:

Yes, the appellant is guilty of treason, not complexed by murder and illegal detention, since these
offenses are elements and the very overt acts of treason. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, the penalty provided by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code should be imposed in
the medium degree.

Appellant’s pretense cannot negatively affect the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that the Filipino citizenship of the appellant was
irregularly proven. As the appellant and his attorney virtually stipulated as to the question of
citizenship, they cannot now be permitted to withdraw therefrom. In view of said stipulation, it
became unnecessary for the prosecution to submit proof on the point.
People V. Tuason 84 Phil 670

FACTS:

The appellant and several companions, some of them carrying rifles, arrested Miguel Castillo,
Candido Cruz, one Daniel, and another unidentified individual. After their arrest, Miguel Castillo,
Candido Cruz and the other two have not been seen again.
In the same barrio, the appellant and several Japanese and Filipino companions, who were known to
be Makapilis, all armed with rifles and pistols, arrested Bibiano Azores, Eustaquio Santos, Elpidio
Cruz, Valentin Cruz, Pedro Cruz, Rafael Bernardo, one Victoriano, Rafael Raymundo, Daniel Santos,
Cirilo Jose and Salvador San Pedro, who were suspected of being guerrillas. After their arrest they
were exposed to the sun, tortured, tied and loaded in a banca. Since their arrest they have not been
seen again, except Valentin Cruz and Rafael Raymundo who were released.
The appellant and several other persons, known to be Makapilis, all carrying firearms, arrested Pedro
Natividad because they suspected him to be a guerrilla. The appellant and his companions demanded
the surrender of the key to the wardrobe for the avowed purpose of searching for a firearm. Instead,
they found jewelry, clothing and money which they took away. The value of the jewelry was P500.
Pedro Natividad was brought to the house of the mayor used as garrison and there maltreated. That
was the last time he was seen by his wife. The following morning Teodora Silverio saw Pedro
Natividad and several companions with swollen faces being dragged away. He could hardly walk.
That was the last time Teodora Silverio saw her brother-in-law Pedro Natividad.

The appellant is a Filipino citizen. Several witnesses testified that they had known the appellant to be
a native of the Philippines, born of Filipino parents. The appellants admit that he was a "Ganap."

ISSUE:

Whether or not Benito Tuason committed treason.

RULING:

No. 

Counsel of the appellant contends that his client is not guilty of treason but at most of illegal detention
as that crime is defined in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no merit in the contention,
because the arrest of the victims constitutes not only adherence to the enemy but also it gave him aid
and, therefore, is treason as defined in article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.
The crime committed by the appellant does not come under the amnesty, because it was not in
furtherance of the resistance movement. It was just the reverse. The claim or theory that sovereignty
of the legitimate government was suspended during the occupation of the country by the enemy has
been rejected in this jurisdiction as an unsound principle of unwholesome consequences.
People v Victoria, 78 Phil 129

FACTS:

Special Prosecutor accuses Carmelito Victoria alias Carlito Victoria, Carling Victoria, Carlos Victoria
of the crime of treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The said accused not being a
foreigner but a Filipino citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, in violation of his said duty of allegiance, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
reasonably did knowingly adhere to their enemy, the Empire of Japan and the Imperial Japanese
Forces in the Philippines, with which the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines
were then at war, giving to said enemy aid and/or comfort.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the accused is guilty of treason on the counts of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

 RULING:    

YES. Accused-appellant is guilty of treason. Appellant’s claim that he helped in the resistance
movement, and succeeding to intercede for some Filipino prisoners does not relieve him from
criminal responsibility, for the acts he had committed as alleged in the counts in the information
which were declared proven by the People’s court. The performance of a righteous action, no matter
how meritorious, is not a justifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance in the commission of
wrongs. Although the appellant had saved lives, if he had caused the killing of a single human being
to give aid and comfort to the enemy, he is nonetheless a traitor.

PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED:

There is disagreement as what penalty shall be imposed, the majority are of the opinion that the
circumstances should be considered aggravating, recommending the supreme penalty of death, while
the author of this opinion maintains that the penalty imposed be that of reclusion perpetua on account
that the circumstances in question are essential elements of the treason he committed.

People v. San Juan 89 Phil 359

FACTS:
The appellant is a Filipino Citizen, charged by the Court of First Instance of Quezon, finding the
appellant, Lamberto San Juan, guilty of treason and sentencing him to reclusión perpetua and its legal
accessories, and to pay a fine of fifteen thousand pesos, plus the costs. The information charged
eleven counts, but appellant's conviction is predicated only on counts 1, 2, 8 and 10.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused be held liable for the crime of treason under one-count information with
the adherence to the enemy.

RULING:

Yes. The Court ruled that Where one of the counts of the information was proved in accordance with
the two-witness rule, and the defendant's adherence to the enemy was implied from the overt acts
charged and established thereunder, such proof is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction
although the other counts of the information have not been proven under the two witness rule.

People vs. Veluz 77 Phil 801

FACTS:

·  People's Court charged him with the crime of treason in that he being a Filipino citizen, and
owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation of said
duty of allegiance.
·  Petitioner had the intent of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, did willfully, unlawfully
feloniously and traitorously join and accept, hold and perform the functions and duties of a spy or
informer for the Japanese Military Police

·  Before the defendant has pleaded, the Office of the Official Prosecutors filed on May 25,
1945,”Amended information by way of a Bill of particulars on the original information," in which,
besides the overt act alleged in the original, other overt acts are alleged or specified.

 ISSUE:

·  Whether or not the defendant may be charged with treason after the information charging him
with the same has been amended.

RULING:

·  Yes. The Court ruled that an information charging a person with the crime of treason filed
within the period of six months from the passage of the Act No. 682, may be amended after said
period, before the defendant has pleaded, by alleging in the amended information additional overt acts
committed by the defendant in aid of the enemy within the period of time alleged in the information. 

People v. San Juan 89 Phil 359

FACTS:

·  The appellant is a Filipino Citizen, charged by the Court of First Instance of Quezon, finding
the appellant, Lamberto San Juan, guilty of treason and sentencing him to reclusión perpetua and its
legal accessories, and to pay a fine of fifteen thousand pesos, plus the costs. The information charged
eleven counts, but appellant's conviction is predicated only on counts 1, 2, 8 and 10.

ISSUE:
·  Whether or not the the accused be held liable for the crime of treason under one-count
information with the adherence to the enemy.

RULING:

·  Yes. The Court ruled that Where one of the counts of the information was proved in
accordance with the two-witness rule, and the defendant's adherence to the enemy was implied from
the overt acts charged and established thereunder, such proof is sufficient to support the defendant's
conviction although the other counts of the information have not been proven under the two witness
rule.

People v. Abad 78 Phil 766

FACTS:

·  The appellant was charged with the crime of treason for giving aid and comfort to the
Japanese Imperial Forces during the period comprises December 24, 1943 to September 26, 1944.

·  The lower court found the accused guilty on the first three counts.

·  Two witnesses were called by the prosecution to prove the first count, Magno Ibarra and his
wife, Isabel.

·  Second count was testified by the witness Fausto Francisco.

·  Third count was testified by the witness Liberato Salvador.

ISSUE:

·  Whether or not the twor-witnessed evidence should adhere to each overt acts.

FACTS:

·  Yes. The Court ruled that the two-witness rule must be adhered to as to each and everyone of
all the external manifestations of the overt act in issue. 

People v. Agpangan, 79 Phil 334

FACTS:

·  Agpangan stands accused of treason, committed between December 1944 and January 1945
in the Province of Laguna when he allegedly joined the Pampar a military organization which
supported the Japanese Army. He was seen doing guard duty in the Japanese garrison “many times”
or more than “ten times” according to two of the three witnesses, Serrano and Adaro, who testified for
the prosecution.

ISSUE:

·  Wether or not the prosecution meets the test under the two-witness rule to convict Agpangan
of treason.

RULING:
 

No. The Court ruled that the prosecution did not meet the test. To meet the test, two witnesses, at
least, shall have testified as to the perpetration of a single but the same and precise treasonous overt
act. In this case, the first 2 witnesses testified they had seen Agpagan “many times” but neither
mentioned any specific time, day and hour. There is no way to conclude that they refer to the same
overt act. Moreover, the prosecution’s case was further weakened by the third witness’ testimony that
Agpangan did the guard duty in Makapili garrison which is 1 kilometer away from the Japanese
garrison referred to by the first 2 witnesses.

People v. Flores et. al, 85 Phil 403

FACTS:

·  The defendants were charged with treason, the first two (Faustino Flores and Leon Gutierrez)
on two counts, and the last one (Felipe Reyes) on five counts. Common to the three defendants was
the charge contained in count No. 2, relating to defendants' alleged participation in the "zoning" of the
barrio of Tipas, Taguig, Rizal, on December 1, 1944, and it is on this count alone that defendants were
found guilty and sentenced to a prison term and fine. Of the other counts, including the charge that
they had joined the Makapili organization, defendants were acquitted for lack of proof. 

ISSUE:

·  Whether or not the defendants should be convicted under the two-witness rule.

RULING:
·  Yes. The court held that the rule is that every act, movement, deed and word of the defendant
charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. 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 and each of the two- witnesses must testify to the whole of the overt act; or if it is separable,
there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act. 

People vs Escleto

GR No. L-1006

June 28, 1949

Facts:

The appellant Escleto was charged with 3 counts of treason. No two witnesses testified in any specific
act of the defendant. The People’s Court, however, believed that the same evidence is sufficient to
proof beyond reasonable doubt the defendant’s adherence to the enemy of the State.

As to the third count, Escleto was alleged to have treasonously arrested one Antonio Conducto as a
guerilla and turned him to the Japanese military and since then, the latter has not been heard again and
considered by his family to have been killed.

Sinforosa Mortero, mother of Antonio Conducto, along with other family members were confronted
by appellant who took down their names and asked them questions. The following day, they were
released except for Antonio and she had not seen her son again.

Patricia Araya, wife of Antonio, declared that after taking their name, and questioned, Escleto told
them nothing would happen to them and they will be allowed to go home. However, when they were
about to be released, Escleto presented Antonio and she heard him say “This is Antonio who was a
firearm”

Issue: W/N the appellant liable for treason.

Held:

No. As held in People v. Adriano, the authors of the two-witness provision in the American
Constitution, from which the Philippine treason law was taken, purposely made it severely restrictive
and conviction for treason difficult. Each of the witnesses must testify to the whole overt act; or if it is
separable, there must be two witnesses to each part of the overt act. Every action, movement, deed,
and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two
witnesses.

Escleto’s act of making note of persons who went to the población as evidence of overt act is weak,
vague and uncertain. Further, although Araya’s testimony might be direct and damaging, it was not
elaborated upon and corroborated by another.

People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil. 561

FACTS

“This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for treason by the People’s Court sentencing the
accused to life imprisonment, Php 10,000 fine, and the costs.”

That between January and April, 1945 or thereabout, during the occupation of the Philippines by the
Japanese Imperial Forces, in the Province of Nueva Ecija and in the mountains in the Island of Luzon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Apolinario Adriano,
who is not a foreigner, but a Filipino citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation of said allegiance, did then and there willfully,
criminally and treasonably adhere to the Military Forces of Japan in the Philippines, against which the
Philippines and the United States were then at war, giving the said enemy aid and comfort as a
member of the Makapili, a military organization established and designed to assist and aid militarily
the Japanese Imperial forces in the Philippines in the said enemy’s war efforts and operations against
the United States and the Philippines.

The court below, however, said these acts had not been established by the testimony of two witnesses,
and so regarded them merely as evidence of adherence to the enemy.

But the court did find established under the two-witness rule, so we infer, “that the accused and other
Makapilis had their headquarters in the enemy garrison at Gapan, Nueva Ecija; that the accused was
in Makapili military uniform; that he was armed with rifle; and that he drilled with other Makapilis
under a Japanese instructor; . . . that during the same period, the accused in Makapili military uniform
and with a rifle, performed duties as sentry at the Japanese garrison and Makapili headquarters in
Gapan, Nueva Ecija;” “that upon the liberation of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, by the American forces, the
accused and other Makapilis retreated to the mountains with the enemy;” and that “the accused, rifle
in hand, later surrendered to the Americans.”
ISSUE

Whether or not the two-witness rule is required in establishing the guilt of the accused in the crime of
treason.

RULING

Yes.

The Philippine law on treason is of Anglo-American origin and so we have to look for guidance from
American sources on its meaning and scope – judicial interpretation has been placed on the two-
witness principle by American courts.

The two-witness rule required for conviction for treason is that no person shall be convicted thereof
unless on the testimony of two-witnesses to the same overt act.  If the overt act is separate, two (2)
witnesses must also testify to each part of overt act for conviction.

 In the case at bar, the findings of the court are not borne out by the proof of two witnesses. No two of
the prosecution witnesses testified to a single one of the various acts of treason imputed by them to
the appellant. Those who gave evidence that the accused took part in raids and seizure of personal
property, and performed sentry duties and military drills, referred to acts allegedly committed on
different dates without any two witnesses coinciding in any one specified deed. There is only one item
on which the witnesses agree: it is that the defendant was a Makapili and was seen by them in
Makapili uniform carrying arms. Yet, again, on this point it cannot be said that one witness is
corroborated by another if corroboration means that two witnesses have seen the accused doing at
least one particular thing, it a routine military chore, or just walking or eating.

By extension, the lawmakers who introduced that provision into the Philippine statute books must be
understood to have intended that the law should operate with the same inflexibility and rigidity as the
American forefathers meant.The judgment is reversed and the appellant acquitted with costs charged
de oficio.
Title: People v. Lol-lo and Saraw G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922

Facts of the Case

On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession. In the second boat were eleven
men, women, and children, all subjects of Holland. At about 7 o’clock in the evening, between the
Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies, the said boat was surrounded by six vintas
manned by twenty-four Moros, all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat,
they took all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women. Holes
were made in the boat in order to submerge it. Two of the Moros were Lol-lo, who also raped one of
the women, and Saraw. Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, 
where they were arrested and charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy.
The trial court rendered judgment finding the two defendants guilty and sentencing each of them to
life imprisonment. A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, on the grounds
that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor of any court
of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense, under the laws in force
in the Philippine Islands.

Issue

Whether or not Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over the crime?

Ruling

Yes.

All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the
high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi (intention to steal), and in the spirit and
intention of universal hostility. Pirates are in law hostes humani generis (“enemy of mankind”). Piracy
is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent
tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The
jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be
punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit
of a foreign state, “for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.” (U.S. vs. Furlong
[1820], 5 Wheat., 184.)

Therefore, the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over the crime.

Title: People vs. Adriano 78 Phil. 561 (1947)

Facts of the Case

That between January and April 1945 or thereabout, during the occupation of the Philippines by the
Japanese Imperial Forces, in the Province of Nueva Ecija and in the mountains in the Island of Luzon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Apolinario Adriano,
who is not a foreigner, but a Filipino citizen owing allegiance to the United States and the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation of said allegiance, did then and there willfully,
criminally and treasonably adhere to the Military Forces of Japan in the Philippines, against which the
Philippines and the United States were then at war, giving the said enemy aid and comfort in the
manner that as a member of the Makapili, a military organization established and designed to assist
and aid militarily the Japanese Imperial forces in the Philippines in the said enemy's war efforts and
operations against the United States and the Philippines, the herein accused bore arm and joined and
assisted the Japanese Military Forces and the Makapili Army in armed conflicts and engagements
against the United States armed forces and the Guerrillas of the Philippine Commonwealth in the
Municipalities of San Leonardo and Gapan, Province of Nueva Ecija, and in the mountains of Luzon,
sometime between January and April 1945. The prosecution did not introduce any evidence to
substantiate any of the facts alleged except that of the defendant's having joined the Makapili
organization. What the People's Court found is that the accused participated with Japanese soldiers in
certain raids and in the confiscation of personal property. The acts of the accused had not been
established by the testimony of two witnesses.

Issue

Whether or not Adriano is guilty of treason

Ruling

No.

The Philippine law on treason follows the two-witness principle derived from the Anglo-American
law on treason. This test requires the concurrence of two witnesses to an overt act of treason.

In this case, each of the overt acts imputed to Adriano failed the test. Although mere membership in
the Makapili organization is a treasonous act in itself (indicative of adherence and giving aid and
comfort to the enemy), such membership is an overt act which should be proven by at least two
witnesses. No two witnesses saw Adriano doing the same single act as a Makapili. Therefore, Adriano
is not guilty of treason.

Title: People vs Alunan 

Facts:

Rafael Alunan is accused of treason because he accepted certain appointments in the government
during the regime of the Philippine Executive Commission (Japanese Occupation Era) and
served/performed acts and duties in accordance with the positions he accepted. 
Among the positions/acts are as follows: 
• accepting and serving in the following positions: Minister of Agriculture and Commerce;
Member of the Executive Council; Member of the Preparatory Commission on Philippine
Independence which drafted the 1943 Constitution; Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
participating in a gratitude mission to Tokyo;
• voting in favor of declaration of war against the Allied Powers; 
• conferring with the Japanese emperor; 
• and helping draft and circulate a “Letter of Response” which promised cooperation with the
Japanese, among others.

Issue:

W/N the accused is guilty of the crime of treason. - NO

Holding:

It is a basic rule that the crime of treason requires at least two witnesses to every act. Therefore, other
tests are merely secondary or corroborative without merit or value for themselves in crimes of treason.
There was much emphasis in identifying the signatures of the accused in the documents presented,
and even an expert witness to verify that the signatures were made by the accused was presented.
However, this cannot override the general rule of at least two witnesses as provided in the RPC.
Authenticity of the signatures on documents cannot be established by ordinary means, but it requires
the testimony of at least 2 witnesses who saw the defendant materially sign. No such witnesses were
presented. The law is clear and specific in this regard. Even if for the purposes of discussion that it
was genuinely the accused’ signatures, it does not constitute sufficient proof of adherence to the
enemy.  “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.” Adherence to the enemy + acts that give the enemy aid and comfort must
concur for the accused to be convicted of treason. Mere acceptance of a public office and performing
the duties of such public office during the Japanese military occupation does not prove adherence to
the enemy.
 PEOPLE VS. CAÑA

G.R. No. L-1678. November 10, 1950.

FACTS:
Pedro Gallego and the defendant Eleuterio Caña were elected Mayor and Vice Mayor
respectively, for the town of Abuyog, Leyte. Eleuterio Caña served as puppet Mayor of the Japanese.
He forced the people to dig trenches and holes and build stables, ejected Filipino civilians in their
homes, and tell guerrillas and their relatives to surrender in order to provide aid and comfort to the
Japanese. In addition to those acts he also guided and accompanied Japanese patrols to the barrios of
Abuyog to apprehend guerrillas, guerrilla suspects and their supporters and also to locate their
hideouts, he force the people to harvest palay in the outlying farms, and did confiscate the palay taken
therefrom, giving part of it to the Japanese soldiers. He then admitted that he was and had always
been a Filipino citizen. Eleuterio Caña, was charged in the People's Court with treason under seven
counts. After trial, he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories
of the law, to pay a fine of P5,000, plus costs. The Court of Appeals is of the opinion that the penalty
applicable is reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:

Should the acts of The acts of treason of which he was accused were supposedly committed
during his incumbency as Acting Mayor of Abuyog.

RULING:

Ordinarily, in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed
in its medium degree, namely, reclusion perpetua as opined by the Court of Appeals. However, taking
a broad view of the case, we are inclined to impose a lighter penalty as did the People’s Court. We
must bear in mind that treason is not an ordinary and everyday offense which must be considered and
punished according to the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances provided
for in the Revised Penal Code. Here, there has been no killing, not even torture of prisoners, at least
not on the part of the appellant. The People’s Court may have been imbued with this same attitude and
viewpoint when it imposed an imprisonment of 15 years without making any reference to the
existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We might add that the fact that the appellant has
been in jail since the beginning of the year 1946 when he was first indicted, inclines us to take a
liberal and benign view of his case.

PEOPLE v. JOSE ORTEGA +

GR No. L-5194, Nov 20, 1952
 
FACTS:
Before the People's Court Jose Ortega was accused of treason on four (4) counts. He first
appealed to the Court of Appeals, after studying the case the Court of Appeals arrived at the
conclusion that appellant was guilty; but because the crime of treason is penalized with reclusion
temporal to death, and in view of the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, said
appellate court is of the opinion that the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree, namely,
reclusion perpetua, it certified the case to us for decision.
Counts 2 and 3 read as follows:
"(2). Ortega, for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to the Japanese Army did willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and treasonably join, accompany and lead a Japanese patrol which captured Santiago
Samaniego, a guerrilla, who was taken to the Japanese Garrison where he was severely beaten and
tortured.
"(3). Jose Ortega, with intent to give aid and comfort to the Japanese Imperial Army, accompany and
lead a Japanese patrol which captured Jesus Samaniego, a guerrilla, who like his brother Santiago was
taken to the Japanese garrison where he was severely beaten and tortured."
ISSUES:
Is Ortega guilty of Counts 2 and 3?
 RULING:
In conclusion, we find the guilt of appellant under counts 2 and 3 as having been fully
established. His adherence to the enemy was also proven. In the imposition of penalties on treason
cases we have not followed strictly the rules of the Penal Code regarding the presence or absence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. We consider rather the gravity or seriousness of the acts of
treason established. Where the accused has taken part in the killing and torture of persons
apprehended by the Japanese forces through him, we impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua or even
death. Where the participation of the accused consisted merely in accompanying Japanese patrols and
helping in the arrest of guerrilla suspects, we generally impose the minimum penalty which is
reclusion temporal. In the present case under the charges proven, Ortega did not take part in the
killing or torture of any person apprehended. And we agree with the trial court that the imposition of
the penalty of reclusion temporal sufficiently punishes his treasonable acts.
 

People of the Philippines V. Godinez 79 Phil 776

Facts: Defendant Jose Luis Godinez worked as a navy officer for the war ships of the Japanese
colonizers for a period of time between May 1942 and June 1943 which was the mark in Philippine
history when the guerilla wars went full-blast. He was paid different sums of money for his naval
services and it is for this reason that he was alleged to have committed treason against the Republic of
the Philippines for carrying out tasks ordered by his Japanese masters. However, he contested that he
could not afford to sway from the orders of his masters because his own and immediate family’s
safety was threatened.

Issue: Whether or not Godinez was guilty of treason for being an officer of the navies under Japanese
rule.

Ruling: No. 
He is not liable for said treasonable charge for the following reasons: a) though he made
remarks against our American allies in the presence of the Japanese, it cannot be alleged against him
because in fact, he has two sons in the guerilla; b) the presence of a Nippon flag on one of the cars he
rode does not show any evidence that indeed, he owned that car; c) he voluntarily surrendered his
firearms when he was found out at the Cebu Port that he was a marines officer and that if the said act
was treason, then all those who surrendered could be held liable for the same; d) his display of the
Rising Sun in his residence in Cebu does not necessarily mean allegiance to the Japanese government
but rather only a form of compliance for safety and security; and e) the allegation claiming he verbally
attacked an American military officer was not proven true because of the taint of grudge that the latter
has on him especially that it was in a context where the safety of his family and own are
compromised.
Given the facts, the Court reaches the conclusion that the defendant's disloyal heart or
treacherous mind has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. He is absolved, with costs de
oficio.
People V Dizon 84 Phil 48

Facts: The defendant Jose Dizon was an active member of the groups of Filipinos who offered help
and support to the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the time of war. Between the
periods of time of August until December 1944, he willfully delivered his own Filipino comrades unto
the hands of the oppressive Japanese and offered places to stay for the foreign colonizers. There were
even accounts of murderous executions carried out against the former because of his offered aide to
the latter. He also participated in secret meetings about the war against the Philippine government in
the secluded mountains of Luzon, most of which took place in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Gorgonio Cantos,
Pantaleon Lara and Amanda Lazaga were the main witnesses that gave testimonies regarding these
claims. When raided out together with an ex-USAFFE officer, Major Leopoldo F. Santos, he did not
deny these claims.

Issue: Whether or not Dizon was guilty of treason for offering help to the enemy colonizers.

Ruling: 
Yes. 
Through the acts on how he demonstrated utter treachery against the Philippine government
in the aspect of human security, protection and dignity preservation of his fellow comrades, it was
evident that indeed, he committed treason. The fact also that he did not raise any more claims or
counteracts when found out red-handed in a particular war raid against what even more strengthens
his guilt of treason.
Given the facts, the trial court sentenced him correctly under article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P10,000 and to pay the costs. The appealed judgment is
affirmed with costs against Appellant.
People V Galo 84 Phil 52 

Facts: Defendant Bernabe Galo was a constabulary officer under the Japanese government in its time
of Philippine Occupation. Allegedly, he participated in executing ill treatments against some of his
fellow Filipino citizens, namely, Jose Quevedo, Juan Baldos, and Teofilo Duran. The first and second
suffered the same under his hands which was violence carried out through a number of fist blows and
“water boarding” or the act of forcing a person to drink huge amounts of liters of water. The third
suffered fist blows to his jaw, on the other hand. These facts were testified by  Jose Quevedo, Juan
Baldos, and Geronimo Quevedo. Moreover, there was also testimony that he physically assaulted
Antonio Reopoldo when the latter would not give in to defendant Galo’s demand to admit whether he
was a spy guerilla. However, Galo only said that he was merely in the presence of his Japanese
masters when these ill treatments were done.

Issue: WON Galo is guilty of treason for being a member of the Japanese constabulary and for his
acts. 

Ruling: No, being a member of the Japanese constabulary does not itself constitute treason but his acts
do.
Having been the principal actors in the execution of ill treatments against his victims of
physical abuse amounting to torture and other violences, in addition to the strong and consistent
testimonies which proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was not just watching over his masters
when the acts were done, already constitutes treason because it shows a form of delivering his
supposes Filipino allies into, not only under the hands of the oppressive imperialists, but rather also in
his abusive hands.
As established by the facts, the judgment is affirmed with costs against Appellant. 

People V Badili 84 Phil 71

 Facts: Defendant Roque Badili was charged of treason on eight accounts with the most
established ones being accounts 2 and 8. The first one claims that he arrested Macario Castanares and
confined him in a Japanese Kempeitai prison for nine days where he was maltreated. 
However, only one witness stood for this claim so the counsel did not believe the alleged
victim. In count No. 8 it is alleged that on or about July 16, 1944, in Pasil, San Nicolas, Cebu City, the
accused in conspiracy with the enemy and other Filipino secret agents, feloniously captured Lt.
Pacifico Rosales of the guerrillas, tie and torture him, and did drag him to a sailboat and kill him
while at sea. 
To prove that allegation, three witnesses were called by the prosecution, namely, Francisca
Garcia, Basilio Argoso, and Pastor Abellana. On the other hand, defendant Badili contested through
an alibi that he did not know Rosales and that at the time of the allegation, he was in Bohol and not in
Cebu.

Issue: WON Badili was guilty of treason for apprehending the activities of a guerilla lieutenant,
whether that said officer died or or not.

Ruling: Yes. 
We are convinced from the evidence that the accused served the enemy as a secret agent to
apprehend members of the resistance movement, and that with the aid of two fellow agents he
captured Lt. Pacifico Rosales. As a result of his felonious actions, Lt. Rosales was prevented from
pursuing his patriotic activities. It is immaterial whether the lieutenant officer was killed or still alive,
although the members of his organization could find no trace of his whereabouts. The evidence on this
point is not sufficient upon which to make a definite pronouncement. But whether Lieutenant Rosales
was killed or not, the act of the accused in apprehending him and preventing him from pursuing his
activities as a member of the guerrilla forces constituted an aid to the enemy.
Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Court decides that the appellant-defendant
deserves reclusion temporal with costs, guilty of the charge of treason.