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.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
80 PHIL 138
People vs. Prieto
FACTS: Accused Prieto was charged with treason. During the Japanese occupation, the accused joined the paramilitary force of the Japanese and acted as an undercover agent for them. He assisted in several executions of suspected guerillas. He was charged of 7 counts of treason. He admitted to counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, but didn’t admit to counts 4, 5, and 6. The special prosecutor was only able to present evidence to support count 4.
HELD/RATIO: The accused was found guilty of treason for counts 1,2,3, and 7; but, he was acquitted for count 4. For counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, the accused was guilty since he admitted. However, he cannot be held liable for count 4 since the two-witness rule wasn’t met. The two witnesses testified to two different incidents. In a different light, common crimes are absorbed in treason.
FACTS: Accused Prieto was charged with treason. During the Japanese occupation, the accused joined the paramilitary force of the Japanese and acted as an undercover agent for them. He assisted in several executions of suspected guerillas. He was charged of 7 counts of treason. He admitted to counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, but didn’t admit to counts 4, 5, and 6. The special prosecutor was only able to present evidence to support count 4.
HELD/RATIO: The accused was found guilty of treason for counts 1,2,3, and 7; but, he was acquitted for count 4. For counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, the accused was guilty since he admitted. However, he cannot be held liable for count 4 since the two-witness rule wasn’t met. The two witnesses testified to two different incidents. In a different light, common crimes are absorbed in treason.
83 PHIL 314
People vs. Perez
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 latter’s carnal pleasure against the will of the women. In some instances, the accused himself raped several women.
HELD/RATIO: 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.
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 latter’s carnal pleasure against the will of the women. In some instances, the accused himself raped several women.
HELD/RATIO: 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.
77 PHIL 856
Laurel vs. Misa
77 Phil. 856
FACTS: The accused was charged with treason. During the Japanese occupation, the accused adhered to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort. He claims that he cannot be tried for treason since his allegiance to the Philippines was suspended at that time. Also, he claims that he cannot be tried under a change of sovereignty over the country since his acts were against the Commonwealth which was replaced already by the Republic.
HELD: The accused was found guilty. A citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. No transfer of sovereignty was made; hence, it is presumed that the Philippine government still had the power. Moreover, sovereignty cannot be suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated and replaced. Sovereignty per se wasn’t suspended; rather, it was the exercise of sovereignty that was suspended. Thus, there is no suspended allegiance. Regarding the change of government, there is no such change since the sovereign – the Filipino people – is still the same. What happened was a mere change of name of government, from Commonwealth to the Republic of the Philippines.
77 Phil. 856
FACTS: The accused was charged with treason. During the Japanese occupation, the accused adhered to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort. He claims that he cannot be tried for treason since his allegiance to the Philippines was suspended at that time. Also, he claims that he cannot be tried under a change of sovereignty over the country since his acts were against the Commonwealth which was replaced already by the Republic.
HELD: The accused was found guilty. A citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. No transfer of sovereignty was made; hence, it is presumed that the Philippine government still had the power. Moreover, sovereignty cannot be suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated and replaced. Sovereignty per se wasn’t suspended; rather, it was the exercise of sovereignty that was suspended. Thus, there is no suspended allegiance. Regarding the change of government, there is no such change since the sovereign – the Filipino people – is still the same. What happened was a mere change of name of government, from Commonwealth to the Republic of the Philippines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)