People v. Manayao (1947) | G.R. No. L-322 | July 28, 1947 | Ponente: Hilado, J.

Nature of the Case: Appeal from the decision of the People’s Court
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Defendant/Appellant: Pedro Manayao
Witnesses: Clarita Paulino, Maria Perez, Policarpio Tigas

SUMMARY: Appellant Pedro Manayao was charged and found guilty of the high crime of treason with multiple
murder. He was with the Japanese and the Makapili when they burned down Barrio Banaban and killed its residents.
He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of Article 41 of RPC (the one about death
penalty), 20k fine, and 2k indemnity for the heirs of each of his listed victims.
DOCTRINE: Crimes against national security and the law of nations > Treason

FACTS:
 Jan 27, 1945: guerillas raided the Japanese in Sitio Pulong Tindahan in Angat, Bulacan
 Jan 29, 1945: in reprisal, Japanese soldiers and members of the Makapili (defendant among them) burned
down Barrio Banaban in Angat, Bulacan (where the family of some guerillas reside).
o They assembled 60-70 of the people behind the chapel and killed everyone assembled except the small
children.
o Defendant allegedly killed 6 women (including Patricia and Dodi who were moms of Clarita and Maria).
o Appellant, when all but the kids were killed, wanted to kill the children too. They were spared by the
Japanese.
 There is a complete absence of evidence tending to show motive on the part of the witnesses for falsely
testifying against appellant (such a motive is not even insinuated by the defendant). The testimony of the
two girls in particular is entitled to very great weight as they were only kids, and would have been enough
without any further corroboration. But there is ample corroboration, as the defendant himself admitted his
participation in the massacre in two sworn statements.
 People’s Court sentenced defendant to death, 20k fine, and 2k indemnity for the heirs of each of his listed
victims. From that, defendant appealed with the following assignments of error:
1. defendant was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan, was subject to military law, and not subject to
the jurisdiction of the People's Court;
2. defendant had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of
treason;
3. it is improper to separately take into account against defendant the aggravating circumstances of (1) the
aid of armed men and (2) the employment of a band;
4. defendant acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior and is therefore exempt from criminal
liability; and
5. defendant had to obey his Japanese masters under pain of severe penalty, therefore his acts should be
considered as committed under the impulse of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.

ISSUES + RULINGS:
1. WON defendant is no longer subject to Philippine laws? – NO
 Defendant: he was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan, was subject to military laws, and outside the
jurisdiction of the People’s Court.
 Court: 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.
 Defendant: he had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of
treason. (He cited section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 631 to justify this).
 Court: no evidence/showing of any of the grounds for losing citizenship as provided by CA 63.
o No evidence that he took an oath of allegiance to Japan.
o No showing that he accepted a commission in the military of Japan.
 o No evidence that he was ever declared a deserter of the Philippine Army, Navy or Air Corps — nor
even that he was a member of said Army, Navy, or Air Corps.
 Defendant: he took an oath before he was admitted into Makapili to help Japan, and he contends that
the oath was in fact one of allegiance to support the constitution and laws of Japan.
o Court: far-fetched deduction; members of the Makapili could have sworn to help Japan in the war
without necessarily swearing to support her constitution and laws.
 Court: Consti Art 2 Sec 22 provides that in times of war a citizen can’t just cast off his loyalty and
obligations to his country. Legislature, in promulgating CA 63, couldn’t have intended (but did not
declare) that the duties of the citizen could be effectively cast off.
 No person, even when he has renounced or incurred the loss of his nationality, shall take up arms against
his native country.
 Defendant’s contentions are absurd as it would amount to that the very fact of committing the
treasonous acts charged against him divested himself of his Philippine citizenship and thereby placed
himself beyond the arm of our treason law. For if this were so, his very crime would be the shield that
would protect him from punishment.
2. WON two separate aggravating circumstances can be appreciated against him? – NO
 People’s Court appreciated 2 separate aggravating circumstances (aid of armed men and employment of
a band). SolGen and this Court both agree with the defendant that only 1 circumstance should be
appreciated (employment of a band).
o In appreciating the existence of a band the employment of more than three armed men is
automatically included, there being only the aggravating circumstance of band to be considered.
3. WON Arts 11 & 12 of the RPC can be appreciated in his favor? – NO
 Defendant: he acted in obedience to an order issued by a superior and is therefore exempt from criminal
liability.
 Court: compliance with duties to or orders from a foreign sovereign, or obedience to an illegal order are
not contemplated as justifying circumstance.
 Defendant: he 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.
 Court: he voluntarily joined the Makapili with full knowledge of its 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.
 The defendant actually acted with gusto during the butchery of Banaban (he wanted to kill the children
as well), so there really is no justifying/exempting circumstance to be appreciated.

FINAL RULING: AFFIRMED the decision of the People’s Court but MODIFIED3 death penalty to reclusion perpetua
with the accessory penalties of Art 41 of the RPC (the one about death penalty).

NOTES
1
section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63
“. . . A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country
upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;
(4) By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country;
xxx xxx xxx
(6) 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.”

2
Consti Art 2 Sec 2: “The defense of the State is a prime duty of government, and in the fulfillment of this duty all
citizens may be required by law to render personal, military or civil service.”
3
SEPARATE OPINION: Perfecto, J.:
 There are terms and concepts that the 2 children couldn’t understand which may possibly make them
susceptible to suggestions.
 The testimony of Tigas contained some inaccuracies. Although they are not too big as to make the Court
doubt the guilt of the defendant, it is enough to create doubt as to whether the death penalty may be justly
imposed upon the defendant.