1

Article 114: Treason  If the defendant is Filipino, he owes

allegiance to the Commonwealth
People vs. Marcaida Government and must be convicted of
treason; but if a foreigner can not be
 Pedro Marcaida was convicted for the crime punished for acts committed by him
of Treason. before the amendment of Article 114 of
 Witness testified in tagalog saying that he is the Revised Penal Code. Since the
evidence does not clearly establish that
“taga Lopez” and did not say “ay panganak
the defendant is Filipino, he can not be
of Lopez”. criminally liable for the crime of treason.
 Defendant was a natural of Lopez, province  It revoked the original ruling. His
of Quezon, his philanthropic care is not immediate freedom is ordered with the
properly proven. costs of office .
 Undoubtedly, he was born before and not  In the present case each and every one
after the Constitution came into force. (1935 of the three witnesses for the
prosecution testified to the effect of
Constitution)
belying the testimonies of the other two,
 Article 2 of Jones Act provide that all in such a way that it is not possible to
inhabitant of the Philippine Island who on accept the testimony of one of them
April 11, 1899 and their children born after without rejecting at the same time the
that date are considered citizens of the testimonies of the other two. Even
Philippines, except those who retained without the two-witness rule in treason
cases, There is no legal basis to convict
allegiance to Spain or U.S.
appellant upon the testimony of any one
 Such article was supported by Article 4 of of the three witnesses, as each one is
the July 1, 1902 Philippine Constitution. belied by the other two. Each of them is
 There was no proof that Pedro Marcaidad unreliable under the maxim "falsus in
was a resident of the Philippines or Spanish unus, falsus in omnibus."
subject on April 11, 1899. If he was a
We vote to acquit appellant.
resident and was not a Spanish citizen, he
could not acquire Filipino citizenship
because he would continue to be a
foreigner.
 If he was Spanish and resided in the
Philippines on April 11, 1899, he
automatically becomes a Philippine Citizen.
 Since there is no evidence in that sense, the
presumption is that he is Filipino.

Issue: Whether or Not Marcaida is guilty for the

crime of Treason? No.

"Executive Order No.44, recognizing that it was

not possible under the Revised Penal Code to
punish for the crime of treason the foreigners
residing in the Philippines who have helped the
enemies, enmendo Article 114, adding a
paragraph of the following tenor: "Likewise, any
alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who
commits acts of treason as defined in
paragraph 1 of this article shall be punished
by prison major to death and shall pay a fine
not to exceed 20,000 pesos. "(Executive Order
No. 44, May 31, 1945.)
 2

US vs. Delos Reyes This Constabulary detective further testified that

one Cenon Nigdao was a lieutenant-colonel in
1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; EVIDENCE; command of the whole Katipunan forces, but at
CONFESSION. — Testimony by an officer as to a that time had been captured and was a prisoner
confession made to him by the accused will not at Pasig.
support a conviction of treason, as a confession of
this crime, to be effective, must be made in open The witness was asked what this Katipunan
court. Society is, and in reply stated that it is an
organization for forming an independent
2. ID.; ID.; OVERT ACT. — The defendant government for the Philippines, not letting their
accepted from the self-styled "secretary of war" of headquarters or whereabouts be known to the
the Katipunan Society a commission as a captain in American Government, and to gain forces and
the "Filipino army," but never made any attempt to arms by any means they can; sometimes they
act as such: Held, That the mere acceptance of the use force in securing members.
commission by the defendant, nothing else being
done, was not an overt act of treason within the When asked if he knew any of the armed forces
meaning of the law. of the society, he said that they made an attack
on May 30 upon a Government upon a
The defendant is charged with the crime of treason, government force of the United States Army. He
committed as follows: said he had not seen the defendant with the
 He did feloniously, treasonably, etc., levy war insurgent forces.
against, adhere to and give aid and comfort to
the enemies of, the United States and of the Another witness for the prosecution testified that
Philippine Islands. he had been informed of this so-called
 He accepted a commission in the regular army government known as the Tagalog republic, or
of the "Filipino republic" and served as a captain Katipunan, through captured documents; that
and carried arms in such army and continued in they had armed forces approximating 300 men,
such office and continued to carry arms. and that he knew their sales and recognized the
 The said "Filipino republic" being an attempted seals on Exhibit A, the commission of the
government organized by various persons defendant, as those of the organization.
against the authority of the United States
Government and that of the Philippine Islands The next witness called by the prosecution was
and having for its object the overthrow by armed Cenon Nigdao, who stated that he was a tailor,
insurrection of the regularly constituted 28 years of age, and secretary of war of the
government in said Islands. Katipunan. He identified the signatures on
Exhibit A. He states that the Katipunan is the
The evidence upon which the court below national party. Its purpose is to defend the rights
based this conviction is substantially as follows: of the country and to ask of the American
Government the freedom of this country.
 A constabulary detective testified that he met
the defendant in Bacord, city of Manila, He further stated that when he gave this
November 21, 1902; that a companion of the commission to the defendant he told him to keep
witness told him that the defendant was a it, and when the time came for them to ask for
captain in the Katipunan Society; that thereupon liberty the people could not do him any harm.
they detained the defendant and took him aside
into a clump of trees where they talked to him The witness named the secretary of the National
and got him to admit that he was an officer of Party, the minister of the interior, the minister of
the Katipunan. The officers took the defendant the state, minister of war, and minister of justice
to his house, where they searched his trunk and of the association.
found in it and took away a revolver and a
captain’s commission, under seals. On cross-examination this "secretary of war,"
who had held office only for one week, testified
 The following is a copy of this commission: that he commanded no forces; did not know that
defendant made any use of his commission; that
they did not take up arms because they were
here in Manila; and that he was living in the
 "SUPREME PRESIDENCY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS" same house with the defendant and gave him
"By reason of the qualifications of Antonio de los Reyes and the good service rendered the commission there.
by him to the fatherland, the supreme president has seen fit to appoint him captain in the
regular army of these Islands.

"It is therefore ordered that all persons render him the corresponding honors and obey all
Another witness sworn for the prosecution
orders which he may issue for the good of the service. stated that he was not a member of the
"K. K., the 30th of August, 1902. Katipunan, but was a member of the National
"CENON NIGDAO,
"S. K., Minister of War. party ever since he left Bilibid Prison; that the
"A. G. DEL ROSARIO,
"S. K., Supreme President. "secretary of war" appointed him a lieutenant-
"To DON ANTONIO DE LOS REYES,
"Appointed Captain in the Regular Army of these Philippine Islands." colonel and he held the commission three
months but had no soldiers to command; and
 3

that there was no army when Cenon Nigdao was duping and misleading the ignorant and the
living at Bacord. vicious — should not be dignified by the name of
the treason.
He said he was sent out to Baliuag by one
Santiago and stayed there about three months, Those engaged in this plotting and scheming in
and when he found out that there was nothing the pretense of establishing an independent
doing he surrendered himself and one revolver government in these Islands, with nothing
to the president. behind them, without arms or soldiers or money,
and without the possibility of success, are simply
If we reject, as we must, the confession of the engaged in deluding themselves and perhaps
defendant made to the Constabulary officer, innocent followers and in filling the cells of Bilibid
because it was not made in open court as Prison.
required by law (sec. 9, act of Congress passed
March 8, 1902), we have put very little in the Even though not guilty of treason, they may
case upon which to base a charge of treason. be tried for other lesser crimes.
Even what there is contradictory. The charge is
that the defendant took arms against the The case of the United States v. Magtibay, 1
government in the regular army of the "Philippine recently decided by this court, involved much the
republic," whereas one witness for the same question as this, and is followed.
prosecution swears that the Katipunan is the
treasonable organization, another says that body The judgment below is therefore reversed and
is known as the "Tagalog republic," and another, the defendant acquitted, but without prejudice to
the so-called secretary of war, who commanded the prosecuting authorities to proceed against
no troops, but to whom the Government the defendant for such other crime or crimes as
presumably gave credit because he testified for the evidence discloses. The costs are adjudged
the prosecution, stated that the Katipunan was de oficio.
the "National party" and the object of that party
was to obtain from the United States, by
peaceable means, the independence of the Note: witness testified not to the same overt
Philippine Islands. act.

The confession of the accused being disposed,

the only other question to be considered is
whether the testimony of one witness that he
issued to the defendant the captain’s
commission above-mentioned, and the
testimony of another witness that he found
this commission in the defendant’s trunk, is
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the
statute that "no person in the Philippine
Islands shall under the authority of the
United States be convicted of treason . . .
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to
the same overt act . . ."

There is no proof whatever that the accused

did any other act in connection with this charge
than to receive this commission. On the contrary
the "secretary of war" testified that they did not
take up arms because they remained her in
Manila.

I am of the opinion that the mere acceptance of

the commission by the defendant, nothing else
being done, was not an overt act of treason
within the meaning of the law. Blackstone says
that "as treason is the highest civil crime which
(considered as a member of the community) any
,an can possibly commit, it ought, therefore, to
be the most freely ascertained."

The state of affairs disclosed by the evidence —

the playing of the game of government, like
children, the secretaries and colonels and
captains, the pictures of flags and seals and
commissions all on paper, for the purpose of
 4

Laurel vs. Misa reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of

government and citizens, are suspended in
G.R. No. L-409 January 30, 1947 abeyance during military occupation.
ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner,
vs. The petitioner is subject to the Revised Penal
ERIBERTO MISA, respondent. Code for the change of form of government
does not affect the prosecution of those
charged with the crime of treason because it is
an offense to the same government and same
FACTS: sovereign people. (Art. 114. Treason. — Any
person who, owing allegiance to (the United
A petition for habeas corpus was filed by States or) the Government of the Philippine
Anastacio Laurel. He claims that a Filipino Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war
citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the against them or adheres to their enemies,
latter aid and comfort during the Japanese giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine
occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by
of treason defined and penalized by the Article reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine
114 of the Revised Penal Code on the grounds not to exceed P20,000 pesos.)
that the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the Philippines and DISSENT:
consequently the correlative allegiance of
Filipino citizen thereto were then suspended; During the long period of Japanese occupation,
and that there was a change of sovereignty all the political laws of the Philippines were
over these Islands upon the proclamation of suspended. This is full harmony with the
the Philippine Republic. generally accepted principles of the
international law adopted by our Constitution [
ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.
ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN TO
THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES The inhabitants of the occupied territory should
SUSPENDED DURING ENEMY necessarily be bound to the sole authority of
OCCUPATION. the invading power whose interest and
requirements are naturally in conflict with those
WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS of displaced government, if it is legitimate for
SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 114 OF THE the military occupant to demand and enforce
REVISED PENAL CODE. from the inhabitants such obedience as may be
necessary for the security of his forces, for the
HELD: maintenance of the law and order, and for the
proper administration of the country.
No. The absolute and permanent allegiance
(Permanent allegiance is the unending
allegiance owed by citizens or subjects to their People vs. Mangahas
states. Generally, a person who owes
permanent allegiance to a state is called a People vs. Perez
national.) of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy of their legitimate
government or sovereign is not abrogated
(repealed) 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. (Article II, section 1, of the
Constitution provides that "Sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.")

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