THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
SUSANO PEREZ (alias KID PEREZ)

G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949

Facts: Susano Perez was charged with Treason for furnishing women to the enemies for immoral purpose.
Allegedly, the accused recruited, apprehended and commandeered numerous girls and women against their will for
satisfying the immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini.

Issue: Whether or Not Perez committed Treason by commandeering the women to satisfy the lust of the Japanese
officers.

Held: No. As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must be to render
assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be directly in furtherance of the
enemies' hostile designs. To make a simple distinction: To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend or out of
charity to the beneficiary so that he may buy personal necessities is to assist him as individual and is not technically
traitorous. On the other hand, to lend or give him money to enable him to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging
war against the giver's country enhance his strength and by same count injures the interest of the government of the
giver. That is treason.

Applying these principles to the case at bar, appellant's first assignment of error is correct. His "commandeering" of
women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor was not
treason even though the women and the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost
their spirit; he was not guilty any more than the women themselves would have been if they voluntarily and
willingly had surrendered their bodies or organized the entertainment. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese
did not directly and materially tend to improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of the United State. The acts
herein charged were not, by fair implication, calculated to strengthen the Japanese Empire or its army or to cripple
the defense and resistance of the other side. Whatever favorable effect the defendant's collaboration with the
Japanese might have in their prosecution of the war was trivial, imperceptible, and unintentional.
 THE UNITED STATES
vs.
APOLONIO CABALLEROS, ET AL.,

G.R. No. 1352 March 29, 1905

Facts: The defendants have been charged as accessories after the fact for the murder of four American school-
teachers. Roberto Baculi confessed that he assisted in the burial of the corpses, but, according to him, he did so
because he was compelled to do so by the murderers. The other defendant, Apolonio Caballeros, allegedly made a
confession before an official of the division of information of the Constabulary that he took part on the said crime.
However, a witness testified that the confession of Apolonio Caballeros was made through the promise made to him
and to the other defendants that nothing would be done to them.

Issue: Whether or not the defendants can be held guilty for the crime:

Held: No. The Penal Code exempts from liability any person who performs the act by reason of irresistible force
(par. 9, art. 8). Baculi acted, doubtless, under such circumstances when he executed the acts which are charged
against him. For the case of Caballero, there is no proof that he took any part in any way in the execution of the
crime with which he has been charged. Also, confessions which do not appear to have been made freely and
voluntarily, without force, intimidation, or promise of pardon, cannot be accepted as proof on a trial. (Sec. 4 Act No.
619 of the Philippine Commission.)

*****The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the perpetration of the crime, which seems to be one
of the motives for the conviction and which the court below takes into consideration in his judgment, is not punished
by the Penal Code and therefore that cannot render the defendants criminally liable according to law. *****
People versus Lol-Lo Please refer to page 35 of the book
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
ANG CHO KIO

G.R. Nos. L-6687 and L-6688 July 29, 1954

Note: I cannot find the full text of this case:

Facts: On December 30, 1952, a Chinese national named Ang Cho Kio, armed with .45 and .38 caliber pistols,
hijacked a Philippine Airlines flight from Laoag to Aparri. Pedro Perlas, the assigned pilot, was asked to re- route
the plane to Amoy. When Perlas refused, he was shot to death by Ang Cho Kio. According to the Solicitor General,
the lower court erred for not declaring that the offense committed is a complex crime of severe coercion with
murder.

Issue: Whether or Not the offense committed is a complex crime of severe coercion with murder?

Held: No. The Court held that Ang Cho Kio executed two separate events, not one; therefore, it could not constitute
the complex crime or coercion with murder. The defendant could have killed Pedro Perlas without forcing him to
change the direction of the plane. Coercion was not essential to commit the murder.

 Article 123 does not apply because it’s a plane. The principle behind is that the court clarifies
that coercion (seizing of the vessel) by the accused was treated as a separate crime from murder
and thus could not be qualified as a complex crime (or in our case, qualified piracy).
 People v. Alunan
Criminal Case No. 3461 – Feb. 27, 1947 - 43 OG 1288

Facts: Rafael R. Alunan was charged with Treason for accepting appointments in the Philippine Executive
Commission (puppet Japanese government in the Philippines). The functions performed or positions held were the
following
- Minister of Agriculture and Commerce; Member of the Executive Council;
- Member of the Preparatory Commission on Philippine Independence which drafted the 1943
Constitution;
- Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
- Participating in a gratitude mission to Tokyo;
- Voting in favor of declaration of war against the Allied Powers; conferring with the Japanese emperor;
and helping draft and circulate a “Letter of Response” which promised cooperation with the Japanese,
among others.

Alunan pleaded not guilty.

Issue: Whether or Not Alunan is guilty of Treason ?

Held: No. There was no sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy. Although some of the charges or acts under the
indictment, have been established in the form and manner prescribed by law, such acts were executed by the
defendant in the performance of his official duties, that is, by reason of the public office that played under abnormal
circumstances, and therefore cannot be estimated as acts proper support and comfort to the enemy cause. Mere
acceptance of public office and performance of the duties of such offices under the Japanese puppet government do
not constitute Treason per se.