SUBJECT:

TOPIC:
Crim 2
Art 114
CASE NAME: People vs Alunan
PONENTE: Leopoldo Rovira
Case Summary:
Brief, recit-ready summary of the case. Keep
Rule of Law:
Article 114 of Revised Penal Code

Date Made:
Jan 22, 2016

Digest Maker:
Rai Matunog

Case Date: Feb 27, 1947

it to 10 sentences, max.

Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the
Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to Their
enemies, giving them aid or comfort Within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, Shall Be
punished by reclusion temporal to death and Shall pay a fine not to Exceed P20, 000
pesos.
No person Shall Be Convicted of treason on the testimony UNLESS of two witnesses at
least to the same overt act or on confession of The Accused in open court.
Detailed Facts:
Rafael Alunan is accused of treason because he accepted certain appointments in the
government during the regime of the Philippine Executive Commission (Japanese
Occupation Era) and served/performed acts and duties in accordance with the positions
he accepted.
Among the positions/acts are as follows:
accepting and serving in the following positions: 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.
Issue:
W/N the accused is guilty of the crime of treason. - NO
Holding:
It is a basic rule that the crime of treason requires at least two witnesses to every act.
Therefore, other tests are merely secondary or corroborative without merit or value for
themselves in crimes of treason.
There was much emphasis in identifying the signatures of the accused in the documents
presented, and even an expert witness to verify that the signatures were made by the
accused was presented. However, this cannot override the general rule of at least two
witnesses as provided in the RPC.
BLOCK D 2019 1

Authenticity of the signatures on documents cannot be established by ordinary means,

but it requires the testimony of at least 2 witnesses who saw the defendant materially
sign. No such witnesses were presented. The law is clear and specific in this regard.
Even if for the purposes of discussion that it was genuinely the accused signatures, it
does not constitute 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 their official duties, that is, by reason of the public office that played
under abnormal circumstances, and therefore can not be estimated as acts proper
support and comfort to the enemy cause. We are of opinion that the mere acceptance of
a public office and perform the functions and duties attached thereto in and during the
Japanese military occupation of the Philippines, not per se crime of treason. But even
accepting that such acts alleged against the accused here were really helpful and
comfort to the enemy, are not punishable in this particular case, since it has not been
proven successful defendant's adherence to the enemy because, as we have said above,
is a prerequisite for a conviction for the crime of treason.
Adherence to the enemy + acts that give the enemy aid and comfort must concur for the
accused to be convicted of treason. Mere acceptance of a public office and performing
the duties of such public office during the Japanese military occupation does not prove
adherence to the enemy.
Ruling:
Case dismissed.
Other Opinions:
J. Diaz, concurring
3 elements to treason:
1. allegiance of the accused
2. treasonable adherence to the enemy
3. commission by the accused of overt acts of giving or tending aid and comfort to
the enemy
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not establish intent on the accused part
to adhere to the enemy as they only establish the overt acts committed by the accused.

BLOCK D 2019 2