Article 114.Treason

Question 1

What are the elements of Treason?

Answer 1

1. Any Filipino Citizen or foreigners residing in the Philippines
2. A war involving the Philippines
3. Levying war against the state, adhering to the enemy- giving aid or comfort to them

Question 2

What are the two modes of committing treason?

Answer 2

1. levying war against the government

2. adhering aid to the enemy, giving them aid/comfort

Question 3

What are the requisites of ‘levying war’?

Answer 3

1. Assembling of men

2. The purpose of executing a treasonable design by force

Question 4

Is ‘enlistment’ to the enemy’s line, an act of levying war?

Answer 4

No. The actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war because there is no actual assembling of men.

Question 5

Is a ‘formal declaration of war’ necessary for levying of war?

Answer 5

No. It is not necessary that there be any formal declaration of the existence of a state of war to justify the conclusion that those engaged in such attempt are levying war and therefore guilty of treason. Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war.
(Justice Johnson,dissenting; U.S. vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil. 495)

Question 6

What is the identified intent of levying of war?

Answer 6

The levying of war must be with the intent to overthrow the government as such, not merely to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular officer.

Question 7

T/F : A Failed attempt to commit treason is not punishable. (Justify)

Answer 7

It matters not how vain and futile the attempt was and how impossible of accomplishment. It is not necessary that those attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms should have the apparent power to succeed in their design in whole or in part. (U.S. vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil. 473)

Question 8

Is it necessary that the purpose of levying war is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy?

Answer 8

Yes. Levying war as an act of treason must be for the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force. Since levying war against the Government is also punished as rebellion, there must be a difference between treason committed by levying war and
rebellion-that is adherence to the enemy.
(If the levying of war is merely a civil uprising, without any intention of helping an external enemy, the crime is not treason. The offenders may be held liable for rebellion under Art. 135 in relation to Art. 134 of this
Code. )

Question 9

What are the requirements of the second way or mode of committing treason?

Answer 9

(1) adherence and
(2)giving aid or comfort to the enemy
CONCURRING TOGETHER

Question 10

Define ‘Adherence to the Enemy’

Answer 10

“Adherence to the enemy” means intent to betray. There is “adherence to the enemy” when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest. (Cramer vs. U.S., 65 Sup. Ct. 918, April 23, 1945)

Question 11

Define Aid/Comfort

Answer 11

“Aid or comfort” means an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s country and an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor’s country to resist or to attack the enemy. (Cramer vs. U.S., supra)

Question 12

How does an act of giving aid or comfort amount to treason? State the Ruling in People v. Agoncillo

Answer 12

Without adherence to the enemy, the act which may give aid or comfort to the enemy does not amount treason. #TawasTubo

Question 13

What acts depict both adherence to the enemy and giving aid or comfort? State the Ratio in People v. Paar and People v. Mangahas

Answer 13

Giving information to or commandeering foodstuffs for, the enemy is evidence of both adherence and aid or comfort. #PulisTuro #FoodStop

Question 14

1. What is the intent of giving aid or comfort that renders an act treasonous?
   State the Ruling in People V. Perez

Answer 14

As 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. #Bugaw US v. Frickie

Question 15

Is it important that the aid actually strengthen the enemy? State the ruling in People v. Alarcon

Answer 15

It is not essential that the effort to aid be successful, provided overt acts are done which if successful would advance the interest of the enemy. (See Cramer vs. United States, 65 Sup. Ct., 918.)

Question 16

What specific acts of aid or comfort constitutes treason?

Answer 16

1.Serving as an active member or an informer of the Japanese Military Police, arresting guerillas to suppress underground movement.
(People v. Fernando)
2.Serving as agent or spy in the Japanese Army to raid the guerilla hide out (People V. Munoz)
3.Acting as finger-woman when a barrio was zonified by the Japanese, pointing out men she accused as guerillas (P. v. Nunez)
4. Taking active part with the active killings of civilians by Japanese soldiers by personally tying the victims. (P. V. Canubas)

Question 17

Does a mere membership to ‘Makapili’ constitute ‘aid/comfort’ as treasonable act?

Answer 17

Yes. Being a Makapili constitutes an overt act of psychological comfort.

As laid in our jurisprudence, 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 of the country with which he was at war. It furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced, his forces augmented, and his courage was enhanced by the knowledge that he could count on men such as the accused and his kind who were ready to strike at their own people. The practical effect of it was no different from that of enlisting in the invader’s army.

Therefore, even a mere membership to ‘Makapili’ constitute ‘aid/comfort’ as treasonable act.

Question 18

Does ‘Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy’ constitute per se the felony of treason?

Answer 18

No. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy do not constitute per se the felony of treason.

The mere acceptance of a public office and the discharge of the functions and duties connected therewith, during the Japanese military occupation in the Philippines, do not constitute per se the felony of treason without satisfactory proof of the adherence of the accused to the cause of the enemy. (People vs. Alunan,P.C., 43 O.G. 1288)

Question 19

When does acceptance of a public office under the enemy constitute treason?

Answer 19

When the positions to which the accused was appointed were not only highly responsible positions but also policy-determining, because they defined the norm of conduct that all the offices and officials under the departments he headed had to adopt and enforce, and helped in the propagation of the creed of the invader, and the acts and utterances of the accused while holding such position were an earnest implement to such policy, the acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties constitute treason. (People vs. Sison, P.C., 42 O.G. 748)

Question 20

In which cases does mere governmental work during the Japanese regime not an act of treason?

Answer 20

1. It does not follow that the faintheart, who gave in, were traitors. It is now undisputed that mere governmental work under the Japanese regime — and pilotage service which may be considered in the same light — does not constitute per se indictable disloyalty. (People vs. Godinez, 79 Phil. 776)

2.Membership in the Bureau of Constabulary under the
government of occupation is not treason. That institution was intended for the promotion and preservation of law and order which were essential, during war, to the life of the civilian population. (People vs. De Castro, 84 Phil. 118)

Question 21

When could a membership in the police force during occupation considered treason?

Answer 21

Active participation with the enemies in the apprehension of guerrillas and infliction of ill-treatments make such member liable for treason.

Appellant’s membership in the police force of Manaoag does not in itself constitute treason; but his having accompanied the Japanese soldiers to the places of abode of guerrilla leaders and the several ill-treatments which he personally inflicted upon them because of their refusal to disclose their connection with the guerrilla forces, constitute treason. (People vs.
Dizon, 84 Phil. 48; People vs. Galo, 84 Phil. 52; People vs. Badili, 84 Phil.71)

Question 22

An accused of treason argued that he was merely
obeying superior orders in the suppression of guerrilla activities, which, in the opinion of his counsel, are outlawed by the rules of war, was his argument tenable?

Answer 22

No. Guerilla warfare may be unlawful, but it should not be suppressed.

Given that the evidence is clear that he identified himself with the enemy’s cause by acting as spy and causing the arrest of even his close relatives to prevent them from taking part in the resistance movement, and while guerrilla warfare may
be unlawful from the standpoint of the conqueror, it cannot be so regarded by those who, by natural right, are trying to drive him out of their invaded
territory. (People vs. Balingit, 83 Phil. 881)

Question 23

When does an arrest of persons alleged to have been guerrillas make an officer not liable for treason?

Answer 23

The matter had no treasonous significance, when the persons arrested admitted that they were suspected of, and investigated for, having burned the house of one Pedro Daco, and were confined in the provincial jail, and not in the Japanese garrison. (People vs. Dumapit, 84 Phil. 698)

Question 24

When is an act of aid or comfort considered as treason?

Answer 24

The aid or comfort given to the enemies must be after the declaration of war. The enemies must be the subject of a foreign power. The aid or comfort given to the enemies must be after the declaration of war between the countries, and the term “enemies” applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of hostility with the traitor’s country. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own country (63 C.J.
816), because they are still citizens and not enemies.

Question 25

Why can’t killings and other common crimes are regarded as separate crimes, or as complexed with treason?

Answer 25

Deeds or physical activities (committing mass murders, arson and robberies) charged an element of treason (giving the enemy aid or comfort), they become identified with the crime of treason and cannot be the subject of a separate punishment or used in conjunction with treason to increase the penalty as provided in Art. 48.

Question 26

What is the geographical qualification of a foreign and a Filipino ‘traitor’?

Answer 26

The law provides that Treason can be committed by a Filipino who is “in the Philippines or elsewhere.” An alien residing in the Philippines can be prosecuted for treason. (Executive Order No. 44, May 31, 1945) Therefore, an alien who is not residing in the Philippines cannot commit treason.

Question 27

What is the implication of Treason not being a continuous offense?

Answer 27

It may be committed by one single act,by a series of acts, or by several series thereof, not only in a single time, but in different times. (People vs. Victoria, 78 Phil.129)Proof of one count is sufficient for conviction.(People vs. San Juan, 89 Phil. 359)

Question 28

Can treason be proved by circumstantial evidence or by the extrajudicial confession of the accused if the evidence against him is circumstantial, however strong or convincing it may be, or is only an extrajudicial confession? Why?

Answer 28

The Revised Penal Code as well as the Rules of Court not authorize the conviction of a person accused of treason if the evidence against him is circumstantial, however strong or convincing it may be, or is only an
extrajudicial confession.

Question 29

What are the ways of proving treason?

Answer 29

A person may be convicted of treason on any of the following evidence
only:
1. Testimony of two witnesses, at least, to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of the accused in open court. (Art. 114, par. 2, Revised Penal Code)

Question 30

Explain The Two-Witness Rule

Answer 30

The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the overt act of giving aid or comfort. An overt act is defined as that physical activity, that deed that constitutes the rendering of aid and comfort. 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.

Question 31

How is adherence proved?

Answer 31

1. by one witness,
2. from the nature of the act itself, or
3. from the circumstances surrounding the act. (Cramer vs. U.S.,
   supra, cited in People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil. 563; People vs.Canibas, 85 Phil. 469)

Question 32

Can Extrajudicial confession or confession be made before the investigators is to convict a person of treason?

Answer 32

No. The law provides that confession of guilt be made in an open court. A confession outside the court is insufficient to convict a person of treason.

Question 33

What are the aggravating circumstances in Treason?

Answer 33

1. Cruelty by subjecting guerrilla suspects to barbarous forms of torture before putting them to death; and ignominy, by stripping the wife of her clothes and then abusing her in the presence of her husband, a
   guerrilla suspect, are aggravating circumstances in treason. (People vs. Adlawan, 83 Phil. 195)
2. Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and brutality with which the killing or physical injuries are carried out are regarded as ignominy and cruelty under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Art. 14 of the Code. (People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 623; People vs. Prieto, 80 Phil. 138)

Question 34

Why are evident premeditation, superior strength and treachery not aggravating circumstances in Treason?

Answer 34

Evident premeditation is not aggravating in treason, because in treason, adherence and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is usually a long continued process requiring reflective and persistent determination and planning. (People vs. Racaza, supra)
Superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in treason. Treachery is merged in superior strength. They are, therefore, not aggravating in treason. (People vs. Adlawan, supra; People vs. Racaza, supra)

Question 35

What is the penalty for a foreign traitor? What about a Filipino traitor?

Answer 35

A Filipino Traitor will have to suffer reclusion perpetua to death and pay a fine not to exceed Four million pesos (P4,000,000).While a foreign traitor - reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed Four million pesos (P4,000,000).