G.R. No.

L-409

January 30, 1947

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner,

vs.
ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.
in G.R. No. L-409, Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the petition
for habeas corpusfiled by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered
to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted
for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the
reason
ISSUE
(1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended;
HELD:
Considering that even adopting the words "temporarily allegiance," repudiated by Oppenheim and
other publicists, as descriptive of the relations borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by
the enemy toward the military government established over them, such allegiance may, at most, be
considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or
sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives as above
described, and does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen
residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign; that just as a citizen or
subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in
a foreign country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the
enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the
enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort; and that if the allegiance of a citizen or subject
to his government or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its laws in return for the protection
he receives, it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreign country or state would,
on one hand, ipso factoacquire the citizenship thereof since he has enforce public order and regulate
the social and commercial life, in return for the protection he receives, and would, on the other hand,
lose his original citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws of his own
government or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign country, the protection he is
entitled to in his own

G.R. No. L-399

January 29, 1948

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EDUARDO PRIETO (alias EDDIE VALENCIA), defendant-appellant.
The appellant was prosecuted in the People's Court for treason on 7 counts. Two witnesses gave
evidence on count 4 but their statements do not coincide on any single detail. These witnesses
evidently referred to two different occasions.
The lower court convicted him of treason

Issue:
Held: Under the Philippine treason law and under the United States constitution defining treason,
after which the former was patterned, there must concur both adherence to the enemy and giving
him aid and comfort. One without the other does not make treason.
In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished by some kind of
action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.
(Cramer vs. U.S., ante.) This deed or physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal
offense under another penal statute or provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an element
of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not be the subject of a separate
punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code provides.
G.R. No. L-60100 March 20, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JAIME RODRIGUEZ alias JIMMY alias WILFRED DE LARA y MEDRANO and RICO
LOPEZ, accused-appellants.
In their brief, appellants Jaime Rodriguez, Rico Lopez and Dario Dece claim that the trial court erred
(1) in imposing the death penalty to the accused-appellants Jaime Rodriguez alias Wilfred de Lara,
Rico Lopez y Fernandez and Davao de Reyes, alias Dario Dece Raymundo y Elausa despite their
plea of guilty; (2) in giving weight to the alleged sworn statements of Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay,
Identified as Exhibits "C" to "C-10" and Exhibits "I to I-5", as evidence against Peter Ponce y
Bulaybulay; (3) in holding that accused-appellant Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay is guilty of the crime of
piracy; (4) in holding that the defense of Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay was merely a denial; and, (5) in
holding that Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay entrusted the P1,700.00 which was his personal money to
Atty. Efren Capulong of the National Bureau of Investigation.
There is no merit in this appeal of the three named defendants, namely: Jaime Rodriguez and Rico
Lopez in G.R. No. L-60100, and Dario Dece in G.R. No. L-60768.
Anent the first assigned error, suffice it to say that Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as
the Anti-Piracy Law, amending Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code and which took effect on
August 8, 1974, provides:
SEC. 3. Penalties.Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage
as herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court be punished by:
a) Piracy.The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods
shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on
the occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape,
murder or no homocide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when
the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when
the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed. (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the penalty imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where rape, murder
or homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty.