An appeals filed by Pedro Marcaidaque Satrata was sentenced for the offence of treason, after lavista corresponding

to the penalty of perpetual confinement with the accessory are prescribed by law and the payment of a fine of P10,
000 and the coasts of the peacemaking. The appealing shows three errors in that incurrio, according to the Court of
the Pueblo.1.o to declare that the cuidadania and loyalty of the accused were sufficiently proven; 2nd to give credit to
the testimony of the witnesses of the charges; and 3rd to convict the accused of the charge No. 3.
The Defense contends that procedure tests in cars do not prove the Philippine cuindadania and Alliance of the
accused Government of the Commonwealth. The transcription of the notes taquigraficas says aue the accused is a
native of Lopez (a native of Lopez). The defence alleges that the witness I declare in Tagalog saying: "Taga Lopez"
and said "Oh panganak sa Lopez." Mons appearing not such thing in the file. If it were true, it is strange that counsel
has not requested the Juzgadoque ordered the taquigrafo to make appear so in your notes. When a party is not as
with the translation of a statement of a witness should be asked to be recorded in ne car only the translation but also
the translated original statement; in their absence, correct sepresumira translation of the official interpreter.
But even admitting - says the defense--that the accused was natural of Lopez, Quezon province, his
cuidadaniafilipina is not properly tested. In support of this containment invoked the article IV of the Constitution, which
entered into force on November 15, 1935. (Article XVI, section 6, Constitution). This case was lugarel on July 15,
1946. If the accused was born, for example, a day after that I entered into force the Constitution, on the day of the
vista not have more than ten years and eight mesesde age, and then committing the offence at the age of nine years.
Although not recorded in car sunacimiento date, we are confident however that it was not a child of such age when
came into view. You had not querallado as a felony Prosecutor. Undoubtedly, born before and not after entry into
force of the Constitution. It cannot accept, therefore, to its provisions.
Article 2 of the Jones Act passed by Congress on August 29, 1916, has thus: "that all the inhabitants of the
Philippines on April 11, ninety-nine milochocientos were Spanish subjects and which season residian in these islands,
and their children born after that date, will be considered and taken as citizens of the Philippines", exceptuandose
those that have chosen to maintain their loyalty to laCorona Spain, under the provisions of the Treaty of peace
between the United States and Spain, signed in Paris the 10 of December of thousand eight hundred ninety-eight,
and with exception of those others that after such date are citizens of any other country: .
Article 4 of the constitutive of 1 July 1902 Philippine law, is along the following lines: "all inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands who reside in them and that the eleven of April of thousand eight hundred ninety-nine were resident in these
islands Spanish subjects and their children born after that date, will be considered and taken as citizens of the
Philippines and as such entitled to the protection of the States" "United, exceptuandose those who have elected to
maintain their loyalty to the Crown of Spain, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of peace between the
United States and Spain, signed in Paris the 10 of December of thousand eight hundred ninety-eight."
The accused is called Pedro Marcaida. Your name and surname, it may be filipino, Spanish or South American. There
is no proof who was resident of the Philippines and Spanish subdito on April 11, 1899. If he was resident and was not
Spanish subdito could not acquire Filipino citizenship because continuaria still foreign.
If it was Spanish subdito and brewed in the Philippines on April 11, 1899, automatically became a filipino citizen
unless you have chosen to retain the Spanish citizenship; but as there is no evidence in this regard, the presuncion
which is filipino.
If born after April 11, 1899, of parents who were Spanish subjects follow the nationality of those: Spanish, if their
parents have sought to retain their loyalty to the Crown of Spain, and filipino, if they chose to lose it. There is no
evidence presented in one way or another: can then be Spanish or filipino.
If born after April 11, 1899 of Filipino parents is Filipino.
It may happen that he was descendant of a South American that has been established in the province of Quezon,
after the signing of the Treaty of Paris; If her father did not want to benefit from the provisions of the Naturalization
Act, then the accused is a foreigner: is the nationality of his father.
If it is a descendant of a Spanish citizen that has started to reside in the Philippines after the Treaty of Paris,
continuaria be Spanish unless it has naturalized. Nor is there evidence in this regard; then it is Spanish, foreign.
Chua Uang peace by the mere fact of being born in the Philippines was not declared Philippine because it was not
Spanish sibdita or a Spanish subdito daughter on April 11, 1899. (Chua against Secretary of labor, 68 Phil., 649.) This
doctrine has been revoked commit of Roa against Insular customs administrator (23 Jur.) Fil., 321) and others later.
(Va against administrator Insularde customs, 23 Jur.) Fil. 491; United States against NGO Tianse, 29 Jur. Fil., 352;

United States against Ang, 36 Jur. Fil. 915; go Julian against Government of the Philippines, 45 Jur. Fil., 301; Haw
against Insular customs administrator, 59 Jur. Fil., 646.) In the case of towers and Gallofin against Tan Chim take
another vezla teoria sitting on the Roa issue, but the Court was divided into the/d ratio of four to three. Elactual
President of the Court and the Imperial magistrate were dissidents. Villareal judge was of the view that the mere birth
in the Philippines does one filipino citizen; but concurrio in the part operative because Roa ladoctrina was
implemented for more than 20 years. The principle of stare decisis is the main reason that moved most to swing back
to the theory of Roa. In his dissent, the current President of the Tribunal 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 "only this Court but also inferior courts had consistently and invariably followed it; the
executive and administrative agencies of theGovernment had theretofore abide by it; and the general public had
acquiesced in it. I do not yield to this judicial 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 once discovered. The rule of stare decisis does not apply to the extent of perpetuating an error (15 C.J. p. 918.)
It is the duty of every court to examine its own decisions without fear and to revise them reluctance (Baker vs.
Lorillard, 4 N. Y., 257.) As was well said in a case, "I hold itto be the duty of this court freely to examine its own
decisions, and, when satisfied that it has fallen into a mistake, to correct the error by overruling its own decision. An
acknowledged error must be more venerable and more inveterate than it can be made by any single decision before
it can claim impunity upon the principle of stare decisis." (Leavitt vs. Blatchaford, 17 N. Y., 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, C.J. in Leavitt vs. Morrow, 6 Ohio St., 71, 78.) Their "authority
must often yield to the force 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 y Gallofin contra Tan Chim, 69 Phil. 518.)
In the Affairs of Tan Chong against Secretary of labor, p. 249, ante, and Lam Swee Sang against Commonwealth of
the Philippines, p. 249, suede, have declared permanently abandoned this theory and adopted that of Chua against
Secretary of labor. The reason is simple. The theory of jus soli in United States is absolute: the mere birth in America,
even of foreign parents, makes one American citizen according to their Constitution and the decision in United States
vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 u. S., 649). The American Constitution did not enter into force in the Philippines. The theory of
jus soli in the Philippines according to the law of 1 July 1902, adopted by the United States Congress which,
according to the Treaty of Paris, is which must determine the conditional: the born in the Philippines is considered a
citizen filipino if they were resident and Spanish subdito or son of a resident and Spanish subdito on April 11, 1899. If
it was foreign or child of a foreigner in value date can not be filipino citizen.
The accused according to the procedure tests in cars, can thus be filipino or foreign.
Under the law of treason No. 292 of the Civil Commission, all resident in the Philippines and loyalty to the United
States or the Government of the Philippines, make them war or formare causes common to its enemies darkroom
and socorriendoles inside or outside of such Islands, committed the offence of treachery. Article 1 of this Act is a
simple transplantacion of the dispocisiones of the American Criminal Code which is along the following lines:
"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: R. S., sec. 5331; Mar.
4,1909, c. 321, sec. 1, 35 Stat., 1088.)
"Treason against the United States," said 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 foreigners as nationals may commit the offence of treachery. Foreigners must be loyalty 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 claim the same theory. (Of Jager vs.) Attorney General of Natal, 8 Ann. CAs., 76.) It is
not necessary to be American citizen so that they can commit the offence of treachery. But the revised Penal Code
have excluded foreigners, only nationals could commit it. Article 114 says so: "that, and fidelity to the United States or
the Government of the Philippines, sinser of foreign nationality, he doeth them war or formare cause common with
their enemies, Darkroom or socorriendoles inside or outside of those islands, will be punished with sentences of
confinement time to death and a fine not exceeding of twenty thousand dollars." Executive Order No.44, recognizing
that it was not possible under the revised Penal Code to punish for the offence of treason to foreigners residing in the
Philippines that have helped the enemies, enmendo the article 114, adding a paragraph along the following lines:
"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 increased to death and shall pay to fine not to exceed 20,000" "weights."
(Executive Order No. 44, May 31, 1945.)

If the accused is filipino, it owes allegiance to the Commonwealth Government and should be convicted of treason;
but foreign students may not be punished for acts committed by the prior to the amendment of the article 114 of the
revised Penal Code. As tests are not established clearly that the accused is filipino, cannot be liable criminally the
offence of treason.
The appeal verdict is revoked. His immediate freedom with the coasts of ex officio is ordered.