ANASTACIO LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS.

ERIBERTO MISA,
RESPONDENT.[ G.R. No. 409, January 30, 1947 ] 77 Phil. 856

Facts:
Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus contending 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:
Is Laurel’s contention correct?

Decision:
No. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and
permanent allegiance. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a
territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign 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.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

Facts:
The defendants were found guilty of the crime of treason. They claim that there is
no proof of adherence to the enemy.

Issue:
Can the defendants be held guilty of treason?

Decision:
Yes. The acts of arresting guerrillas, commandeering foodstuffs, doing sentry
work, drilling in the plaza, going around the town carrying firearms, and the fact that
before the outbreak of the war they were members of the Ganap Party and in the latter
period of the Japanese occupation of the Makapili organization, are more than sufficient
proofs of adherence to the enemy.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,
VS.CucufateAdlawan, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-456,
March 29, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 194

Facts:
Adlawan was convicted of the complex crime of treason with murder, robbery,
and rape. He contends that the court erred holding that the crime committed is a
complex crime of treason with murder, rape and robbery.

Issue:
Is the contention of the appellant correct?

Decision:
Yes. The killings, robbery, and raping mentioned in the information are therein
alleged not as specific offenses but as mere elements of the crime of treason for which
the accused is being prosecuted. Being merged in and identified with the general charge,
they cannot be used in combination with treason to increase the penalty under article 48
of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant should, therefore, be held guilty of treason only.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

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

Issue:

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

Decision:
No. Evident premeditation, superior strength, and treachery are, by their nature,
inherent in the offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty.
Adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is a long, continued process
requiringfixed, reflective and persistent determination and planning. Treachery is
merged in superior strength. To overcome the opposition and wipe out resistance
movements, the use of a large force and equipment was necessary. The enemy to whom
the accused adhered was itself the personification of brute, superior force, and it was
this superior force which enabled him to overrun the country and for a time subdue its
inhabitants by his brutal rule.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

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

Issue:
Can Perez be held guilty of treason?

Decision:
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 PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

Facts:
Prieto was found guilty of the crime of treason complexed by murder and
physical injuries.

Issue:
Is the finding of the lower court proper?

Decision:
 No. In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be
accomplished by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical
activity as opposed to a mental operation. This deed or physical activity may be, and
often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or provision. Even so,
when the deed 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. So a
defendant may not be made liable for murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with
another offense where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of
treason.

78 PHIL 721
People vs. Manayao

FACTS: The three accused were charged with treason complexed with multiple murder
in the People’s Court. They participated in the massacre of several citizens who were
suspected to have been helping the guerillas. The accused claimed that they cannot be
tried since the Court has no jurisdiction. Furthermore, they claimed that they had
renounced their Filipino citizenship after joining the Japanese paramilitary Makapili,
and then swearing allegiance to Japan.

HELD/RATIO: The accused were found guilty. The Makapili is not a part of the
Japanese army. It was an organization of Filipino traitors. Moreover, there is no
evidence that the accused swore to an oath of allegiance when they entered the said
organization. Furthermore, it is the lone prerogative of the State to allow or deny one’s
change of citizenship.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE,

Facts:
Adriano was convicted of treason. The prosecution did not introduce any
evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except that of defendant's having joined
the Makapili organization. Even 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.

Issue:
Can the appellant be held guilty of treason?

Decision:
No. Membership as a Makapili, as an overt act, must be established by the
deposition of two witnesses. Where two or more witnesses give oaths to an overt act and
only one of them is believed by the court or jury, the defendant, it has been said and
held, is entitled to discharge, regardless of any moral conviction of the culprit's guilt as
gauged and tested by the ordinary and natural methods, with which we are familiar, of
finding the truth.

GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. ERIBERTO MISA, DIRECTOR OF

Facts:
The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by
the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army, turned over last September,
to the Commonwealth Government, and since then detained by the respondent as a
political prisoner. Such detention, he claims, is illegal, because he has not been charged
before, nor convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because he may not be
confined under Act No. 682, as he owes allegiance neither to the United States nor to the
Commonwealth of the Philippines.

Issue:
Is the contention of the petitioner correct?

Decision:
No. Petitioner’s foreign status does not exclude him ipso facto from the scope of
Commonwealth Act No. 682. As stated by the Solicitor-General, he might be prosecuted
for espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender, and considered
as an offense against national security.