Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-953 September 18, 1947

Philippine Islands, excepting those who have preferred to retain their loyalty to laCorona of Espaa accordance with the provisions of the Peace Treaty between the United States and Espaa, signed in Paris on December 10 of 1898, and with the exception of those that after that date have been from another country CITIZENS: .... Article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the Philippines dated 1 July 1902, reads as follows: "All inhabitants of the Philippines residing therein and deabril eleven of 1899 were Spanish subjects? oles residents in these islands and their children born after that date, shall be deemed and held as citizens of the Philippines and as such conderecho to the protection of the United States, excepting those who have eligado retain their loyalty to the Crown of Spain accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Espaa signed in Paris on December 10 of 1898. " The defendant is called Peter Marcaida. By its name, can be Filipino, both Spanish and South American. Nohay proof that a resident of the Philippines and subject both Spanish on April 11, 1899. If I was a resident and was not subject both Spanish could not acquire Filipino because CITIZENSHIP would remain abroad. If it was subject both Spanish and resided in the Philippine Islands on April 11, 1899, automatically became cuidadanofilipino unless CITIZENSHIP opted to retain both Spanish, but since there is such evidence, the presumption is that the is Filipino. If born after the April 11, 1899 to parents who were subjects both Spanish follow the nationality of those: both Spanish, if their parents have wanted to retain their loyalty wing Crown Espaa, and Filipino, if they chose to lose . No evidence presented in one way or another: can serentonces both Spanish and Filipino. If born after the April 11, 1899 of Filipino parents is Filipino. It may happen that a descendant of a South American has been established in the province of Quezon after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, when his father refused to use the provisions of the naturalization law, then the defendant is abroad: segue nationality his father. If a descendant of a cuidadano both Spanish has started to reside in the Philippines after the Treaty of Paris, would continue to be both Spanish unless you naturalized. Nor is there evidence to that effect, then it is both Spanish, abroad. Paz Chua Uang by the mere fact of being born in the Philippines was declared because it was sibdita Philippine espa? Ola or daughter of a subject both Spanish on April 11, 1899. (Chua v. Secretary of Labor, 68 Phil., 649.) This doctrine implicitly revoked Roa against Insular Collector of Customs (23 Phil., 321) and subsequent. (Va? Insularde Manager or against Customs, 23 Phil., 491, United States v. Tianse Ong, 29 Phil., 352; United States against Ang, 36 Phil., 915, Go Julian against the Government Philippine Islands, 45 Phil., 301; Haw against Insular Collector of Customs, 59 Phil., 646.) In the case of Torres and Gallofin against Tan Chim vezla adopted another theory is sitting in the matter of Roa, but The Court was divided in the ratio of four for three. Elactual Chief Justice and Judge Imperial were dissenters. The judge felt that the simple Villareal birth in the Philippines not cuidadano makes one Filipino, but concurred in part because of Roa ladoctrina was applying for more

EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. PEDRO MARCAIDA, acusado-apelante. D. Victoriano H. Endaya en representacion del apelante. El Procurador General Auxiliar Sr. Ruperto Kapunan,Jr., y el Procurador Sr. Esmeraldo Umali en representacion del Gobierno. PABLO, J.: Satrata of an appeal by Peter Marcaidaque was sentenced for the crime of treason after LaVista corresponding to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay a fine of P10, 000 and the costs of Juico. The appellant points out three errors incurred, according to him, the Court of Pueblo.1.o CITIZENSHIP Declaring loyalty and accused were sufficiently proven; 2D Giving credit to the testimony of prosecution witnesses, and 3 . or Al convict the accused of the charge No. 3. The defense contends that the evidence of record cuindadania not prove the defendant's alliance and Philippine Commonwealth algobierno. The transcript of the shorthand notes Aue says the defendant is natural Lopez (a native of Lopez). The defense argues that the witness testified in Tagalog saying: "Taga Lopez" and said "ay sa panganak Lopez." Aperece No such thing on the record. If true, it is strange or that counsel did not request the Juzgadoque order the court reporter to do so stated in his notes. When a party is not satisfied with the traduction of a statement of a witness should be asked to enter in cars ne only translation but also translated the original statement, failing, correct sepresumira official interpreter's translation. But even admitting? says the defense? that the defendant was natural for Lopez, Quezon province, its cuidadaniafilipina not properly tested. In support of this contention invoked Article IV of the Constitution, which came into force on November 15, 1935. (Article XVI, Section 6, Constitution.) The hearing of this case took lugarel July 15, 1946. If the defendant was I born, for example, a day after the Constitution came into force on the day of the hearing was not more than ten years and eight mesesde age, and then committed the offense at the age of about nine to years now. Although the record shows sunacimiento date, however we are sure that it was a child? Or so old when I go into view. No querallado the prosecutor would have a serious crime. Certainly, not born before and after entering into force the Constitution. Can not be accepted, therefore, its provisions. Article 2 of the Jones Act approved by Congress on August 29, 1916, provides as follows: "That all the people of the Philippines that the April 11 of milochocientos ninety-nine were Spanish subjects? Oles and then resided quea in these islands, and their children born after that date will be considered and taken as citizens of the

than 20 years. The principle of stare decisis is the main reason that prompted most to re-adopt the theory of Roa. In his dissent, the current President of the Court said: The Majority says nothing in support of the correctness of theRoa ruling, and seeks simply to justify its continued observance upon the fact That it "had been adhered to and accepted for more than 20 years before the adoption of the Constitution," and That not " Also only this Court but lower courts had consistently and invariably Followed it, the executive and administrative agencies of theGovernment had theretofore abide by it, and the public generally had acquiesced in it. I do not yield to this court policy. If we induced the Government and the public to follow and accept an error for some time, it does not seem to be a good policy to continue inducing them to follow and accept the same error discovered eleven. The rule of stare decisis does not apply to the Extent of perpetuating an Error (15 CJ, p. 918.) It is the duty of every court to review its own decisions without fear and reluctance to revise them (Baker vs. Lorillard, 4 NY, 257.) As was well said in a case, " I hold itto be the duty of this court to examine its freely own decisions, and, When That It Has Fallen satisfied into a mistake, to correct the error by overruling its own decision. An Acknowledged mistake must be more venerable and more inveterate than it can be made by any single decision before it can claim upon the principle of Impunity stare decisis. "(Vs. Leavitt. Blatchaford, 17 NY, 521, 523.)" Precedents are to Be Regarded As the great storehouse of experience, not always to be Followed, but to be looked to as beacon lights in the progress of judicial investigation. "(Per Bartley, CJ, in Leavitt vs. Morrow, 6 Ohio St., 71, 78.) Their "authority must yield to the force Often of reason, and to the Paramount Demands of justice as well as to the decencies of civilized society, and the law ought to speak with a voice responsive to These demands." (Norton vs . Randolph, 176 Ala., 381, 383, 58 S. 283.) "(Torres and Gallofin against Tan Chim, 69 Phil., 518.) In matters of Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, p. 249, ante, and Lam Swee Sang v. Commonwealth of the Philippines, p. 249, ante, we have stated definitively abandoned this theory and adopted the deChua v. Secretary of Labor. The reason is simple. The theory of jus soli in America is absolute elsimple American birth According to its constitution and the decision in United States v.. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. S., 649). The American Constitution never came into force in the Philippines. The theory of jus soli in the Philippines in accordance with the law of 1 July 1902, passed by the U.S. Congress that, under the Treaty of Paris, is one that has dedeterminar parole: that the Philippines-born Filipino citizen with esconsiderado if a resident and subject both Spanish or child of a resident and subject both Spanish on April 11, 1899. If a foreigner or child of an alien in aqeulla date can not be cuidadano Filipino. The defendant then, according to the evidence enautos may be Filipino or foreigner. Under the Treason Act No. 292 of the Civil Commission, any resident in the Philippines, owing allegiance to the UnitedStates or the Government of the Philippine Islands, or war will formare heciere common cause with their enemies and helping them socorriendoles within or outside those Islands, the crime committed treason. The section 1 of the Act is unasimple transplantation over the provisions of the Criminal Code which reads as American FOLLOWING: "Whoever, Owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adhere to Their enemies, giving them

aid and comfort Within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason. " (Sec. 1, Crim. Code: RS, sec. 5331; Mar. 4.1909, c. 321, sec. 1, 35 Stat., 1088.) "Treason against the United States," says the American Constitution, "shall Consist only in levying against them, or in adhering to Their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (Section 3 [1], Article III.) In both American and domestic extranjros can commit the crime of treason. Foreigners owe allegiance to the government of America during the time of his residence. (Carlisle vs. U.S., 21 Law. Ed., 426; Raditch vs. Hutchins, 24 Law. Ed., 409.) The British hold the same theory. (De Jager vs. Attorney General of Natal, 8 Ann. Cas., 76.) Need not be a U.S. Citizen for them to commit the crime of treason. But the Revised Penal Code have excluded the foreign nationals can only commit. Article 114 reads: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, sinser of foreign nationality, I do them formare war or common cause with their enemies, helping or socorriendoles inside or outside these Islands shall be punished with the penalties of reclusion temporal to death and a fine not exceeding twenty thousand dollars. " Executive Order No.44, recognizing that it was not possible under the Revised Penal Code punish for the crime of treason against foreigners living in the Philippines who have helped the enemies, amended Section 114, are adding to a paragraph of tenor FOLLOWING: "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 prision mayor to death and Shall pay a fine not to Exceed 20,000 pesos." (Executive Order No. 44, May 31, 1945.) If the defendant is Filipino, owing allegiance to the Commonwealth Government and must be condemned for treason, but sies abroad can not be punished for acts committed prior to the amendment of Article 114 of the Revised CodigoPenal. As evidence of unamanera not establish clear that the defendant is Filipino, can not be criminally responsible for the crime of treason It reverses the judgment appealed. He ordered his immediate release the costs of trade.