0

HigitPa SusunodnaBlog

BumuongBlog Magsignin

The Ramyun Girl

Mild. Spicy. Sweet. Take your pick.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Blog Archive

Criminal Law 2 Digests: TREASON

2016 (2)
2015 (3)

LAUREL V. MISA

2013 (4)
December (1)

FACTS:

October (1)

A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio Laurel. He claims that a Filipino citizen
who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation
cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason for the reasons that the sovereignty of the
legitimate government in the Philippines and consequently the correlative allegiance of
Filipino citizen thereto were then suspended; and that there was a change of sovereignty
over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.

January (2)
Criminal Law 2 Digests:
TREASON
Breaking Down: Super Junior
M's 2nd Album
2012 (1)

ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO THE

GOVERNMENT BECOMES SUSPENDED DURING OCCUPATION

Who is the Ramyun Girl?

The Ramyun Girl

HELD:
No. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the
enemy of 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. It remains vested in the legitimate government.
What may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant. The
political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government
and citizens, are suspended in abeyance during military occupation.
DISSENT:
During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were
suspended. This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international
law adopted by our Constitution [ Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.
The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority
of the invading power whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those
of displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and
enforce from the inhabit ants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his
forces, for the maintenance of the law and order, and for the proper administration of the
country.
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
FACTS:

Depressed

Wildling at Castle Black

Wannabe badass
swordsman Introvert
Loser Extrodinaire

View my complete profile

Susano Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason and was sentenced to death by
electrocution.
TC found the accused, together with the other Filipinos, recruited, apprehended and
commandeered numerous girls and women against their will for the purpose of using them,
to satisfy the sexual desire of the Japanese officers.
The Solicitor General submitted an opposite view stating that the deeds committed by the
accused do not constitute treason. It further discussed that if furnishing women for immoral
purposes to the enemies was treason because womens company kept up their morale, so
fraternizing them, entertaining them at parties, selling them food and drinks, and kindred
acts, would be treason . Any act of hospitality produces the same result.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of the accused constituted the crime of treason.
HELD: NO. The law of treason does not prescribe 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.
His commandeering of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven
the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost their spirit.
Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and materially tend to
improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of US. Whatever favorable effect the
defendants collaboration with the Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war 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
circumstance of each particular case.
But the accused may be punished for the rape as principal by direct participation. Without
his coordination in the manner above stated, these rapes could not have been committed.
PEOPLE V. PRIETO
FACTS:
The appellant was prosecuted for treason.
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.
The next witness, testified that he saw the accused following an American and the accused
were Japanese and other Filipinos.
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.
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.
ISSUES;
1. Whether the twowitness rule was sufficiently complied.
2. Whether the TC erred in ruling that the murders and physical injuries were crimes distinct
from treason.
HELD:
1. 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.
2. The execution of some of the guerilla suspects mentioned and the infliction of physical
injuries on others are not offenses separate from treason. There must concur both
adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. One without the other does not
make treason.
In the nature of things, the giving 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.
However, the brutality with the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken as
an aggravating circumstances. Thus, the use of torture and other atrocities on the victims
instead of the usual and less painful method of execution will be taken into account to
increase the penalty.
PEOPLE V. MANAYAO
FACTS:
Appellant Pedro Manayao was among those who were charged with the aggravating
circumstances of 1.) the aid of armed men and 2.) the employment or presence of a band
in the commission of the crime, he was sentenced to death.
The guerrillas raided the Japanese in Angat, Bulacan. In reprised, Japanese soldiers and a
number of Filipinos affiliated with the Makapili, among them the instant appellant,
conceived the diabolical idea of killing the residents. Appellant killed six women.
Appellants counsel contends that appellant was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan,
was subject to military law, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Peoples Court.
Appellant had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the
Philippine law of treason.
He further contends certain provisions of CA 63 states that:
A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events.
By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twentyone years of age or more.
By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country.
By having been declared, by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine Army, Navy,
or Air Corps in time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of treason

HELD: Yes, the appellant was found guilty of the crime of treason.
The Makapili, although organized to render military aid to the Japanese Army in the
Philippines during the late war, was not a part of said army. It was an organization of
Filipino traitors.
There is no evidence that appellant has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laes of Japan.
The members of the Makapili could have sworn to help Japan in the war without necessarily
swearing to support her constitution and the laws.
Neither was there any showing too that they have lost their citizenship in connection with
the provisions stated in CA 63. No person even when he has renounced or incurred the loss
of his nationality, shall take up arms against his native country; he shall be held guilty of
felony and treason, of he does not strictly observe this duty.
As to appellants contention that he only acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior
and is therefore exempt from criminal, liability, because he allegedly acted in the
fulfillment of a duty incidental to his service for Japan as a member of the Makapili.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 11 of RPC states that compliance with duties to or orders from a
foreign sovereign is considered an illegal order.
The contention that as a member of the Makapili appellant had to obey his Japanese
masters under pain of severe penalty, and that therefore his acts should be considered as
committed under the impulse of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury. Appellant joined the Makapili with the full knowledge of its avowed purpose
of rendering military aid to Japan. He knew the consequences to be expected if the
alleged irresistible force or uncontrollable fear subsequently arose, he brought them about
himself freely and voluntarily.

PEOPLE V. ADRIANO
FACTS:
Apolonio Adriano owing allegiance to the US and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, in
violation of aid 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.
The accused is alleged to be a member of the Makapili and alleged to be a member of the
Makapili and alleged to have been bore arms and joined and assisted the Japanese Military
Forces and the Makapili Army in armed conflicts and engagements against the US armed
forces and the Guerillas.
TC found that the accused participated with Japanese soldiers in certain raids and in
confiscation of personal property. The court below, however, said these acts had not been
established by the testimony of two witnesses, and so regarded then merely as evidence of
adherence to the enemy. 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.
ISSUE: Whether being a mere member of Makapili shows overt acts of committing treason.
HELD: Yes. The mere fact of having joined a Makapili is evidence of both adherence to the
enemy and giving him aid and comfort unless forced upon one against his will.

Being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an overt act. It is not necessary that the
defendant actually went to battle or committed nefarious acts against his country or
countrymen. The crime of treason was committed if he placed himself at the enemys call
to fight side by side with him when the opportune time came even though an opportunity
never presented itself. Such membership by its very nature gave the enemy aid and comfort.

The enemy derived psychological comfort in the knowledge that he had on his side nationals
or the country with which his was at war.
SC set aside the judgment of the SC.

DISSENT:
Being a member of the Makapili during the Japanese occupation of those areas of the
Philippines referred to in the information, was one single, continuous, and indivisible overt
act of the present accused whereby he gave aid and comfort to the Japanese invaders.
The fact that he was seen on a certain day by one of the state witnesses being a member of
the Makapili, and was seen by another state witness but on a different day being a member
of the same organization, does not mean that his membership on the first day was different
or independent from his membership on the other day.
Posted by The Ramyun Girl at 12:52 AM
Recommend this on Google

No comments:
Post a Comment

Enteryourcomment...

Commentas:

Publish

Selectprofile...

Preview

Newer Post

Home

Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Travel template. Template images by compassandcamera. Powered by Blogger.