1. The appellant Maximo Bate was found guilty of one count of treason for arresting a woman and taking her to a Japanese military police officer where she was interrogated. While the evidence was not sufficient to prove all overt acts, it showed adherence to the enemy.
2. The defendant Dalmacio Lagnason led an attack on a town but was driven off by constabulary forces. He was later encountered and captured, found guilty of treason for levying war against the US government in the Philippines.
3. Lorenzo Morales was seen carrying a firearm and acting as a guard alongside Japanese soldiers. This showed he was working with the enemy, and he was found guilty of treason.
1. The appellant Maximo Bate was found guilty of one count of treason for arresting a woman and taking her to a Japanese military police officer where she was interrogated. While the evidence was not sufficient to prove all overt acts, it showed adherence to the enemy.
2. The defendant Dalmacio Lagnason led an attack on a town but was driven off by constabulary forces. He was later encountered and captured, found guilty of treason for levying war against the US government in the Philippines.
3. Lorenzo Morales was seen carrying a firearm and acting as a guard alongside Japanese soldiers. This showed he was working with the enemy, and he was found guilty of treason.
1. The appellant Maximo Bate was found guilty of one count of treason for arresting a woman and taking her to a Japanese military police officer where she was interrogated. While the evidence was not sufficient to prove all overt acts, it showed adherence to the enemy.
2. The defendant Dalmacio Lagnason led an attack on a town but was driven off by constabulary forces. He was later encountered and captured, found guilty of treason for levying war against the US government in the Philippines.
3. Lorenzo Morales was seen carrying a firearm and acting as a guard alongside Japanese soldiers. This showed he was working with the enemy, and he was found guilty of treason.
1. The appellant Maximo Bate was found guilty of one count of treason for arresting a woman and taking her to a Japanese military police officer where she was interrogated. While the evidence was not sufficient to prove all overt acts, it showed adherence to the enemy.
2. The defendant Dalmacio Lagnason led an attack on a town but was driven off by constabulary forces. He was later encountered and captured, found guilty of treason for levying war against the US government in the Philippines.
3. Lorenzo Morales was seen carrying a firearm and acting as a guard alongside Japanese soldiers. This showed he was working with the enemy, and he was found guilty of treason.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
CASE DIGESTS IN CLJ 4
TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL INTEREST
ART 114 TREASON
1.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO
BATE (ALIAS BORJA, ALIAS PATSO), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. [ G.R. No. L- 1547, January 28, 1949 ]82 Phil. 716 Facts: Bate was found guilty on six counts of treason. On one count, the appellant who was then armed and who was accompanied by several undercover men arrested Francisca Bacalla and took her to Sgt. Yoshida, chief of the Japanese Military Police, where she was investigated and maltreated. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, only one witness FelisaTaboado testified as to Bacalla's arrest by the appellant and only one witness, ConradoBao, the cook of Sgt. Yoshida testified about her investigation at Yoshida's house by the defendant. Issue: Can the appellant be held guilty of treason? Decision: Yes. Although not sufficient to prove the overt acts of which Bate is accused, nevertheless, the evidence may be considered as proof of his adherence to the enemy.
2. THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS.DALMACIO
LAGNASON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. 1582, March 28, 1904 ] 3 Phil. 472 Facts:The defendant with this band made an attack upon the pueblo of Murcia in the Province of Occidental Negros, but was driven off by the force of Constabulary there stationed. During that night two inspectors of the Constabulary arrived with additional fortes and early in the morning they left the pueblo in search of the defendant. He was encountered with his party about three kilometers from the pueblo and was attacked by the Constabulary.The defendant was captured in the battle. Issue: Did the defendant commit treason? Decision: Yes. Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission states that every person, resident in the Philippine Islands, owing allegiance to the United States, or the Government of the Philippine Islands, who levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.
3. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.LORENZO
MORALES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-4533, May 28, 1952 ]91 Phil. 445 Facts: Morales was charged with the crime of treason. He insists that his mere presence is not sufficient to constitute treason. Issue: Can the appellant be held guilty of treason? Decision: Yes. Morales was carrying a firearm and was seen behaving as a guard. During the Japanese occupation, nobody could carry a gun freely in the presence of Japanese soldiers, unless he was an agent of or in cahoots with the enemy. It is far-fetched to suppose that the defendant happened to be in the place above mentioned as a mere spectator. Openly carrying a firearm, while going with Japanese soldiers, can only be reconciled with the idea that the man was in league with and had the confidence of the enemy.
4.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.PEDRO T.
VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANT AND APPELALNT.[ G. R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958 ]104 Phil. 450 Facts: The prosecution established that during the Japanese occupation, appellant, who is a Filipino citizen, and owing allegiance to the United States of America and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, gave the enemy aid and comfort by rendering service with the Japanese Imperial Army as secret agent, informer and spy, of its Detective Force in the province of Iloilo. The appellant put up the defense of duress allegedly exerted by the Japanese upon him for which he had to serve in the detective force of the Japanese Army. Issue: Can the appellant be held guilty of treason? Decision: Except the lone and self-serving testimony of the appellant that he was coerced to cooperate with and serve the Japanese soldiers, there is not an iota of proof that he was in fact compelled or coerced by the Japanese. Much less is there any evidence showing that the alleged compulsion or coercion was grave and imminent.
5. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.ANTONIO
RACAZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G.R. No. L-365, January 21, 1949 ]82 Phil. 623 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.
6. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS.ELEUTERIO
ICARO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.[ G. R. No. L-2956, May 23, 1951 ]89 Phil. 12 Facts: Icaro was found guilty of treason. He denies that he was a Makapili. Issue: Can the appellant be held guilty of treason? Decision: Yes. The point becomes unnecessary, since adherence to the enemy may be inferred from the overt acts of treason committed by the appellant, consisting in the arrest of persons suspected of being guerrillas who, with the exception of one Emilio Biscocho, were never seen again, especially because the appellant was armed and in company with armed Japanese soldiers and other Filipinos.
