Site icon KAI DARUL

Case Digest: People v. Perez GR No L-856

Case Digests

People v. Perez GR No L-856

Topic: Treason (Aid and Comfort)

Facts:

  1. Susano Perez alias Kid Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason by the 5th Division of the People’s Court sitting in Cebu City and sentenced to death by electrocution.
  2. Seven counts were alleged in the information but the prosecution offered evidence only on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, all of which, according to the court, were substantiated. All of these counts alleges that the accused, together with the other Filipinos, recruited, apprehended and commandeered numerous girls and women against their will for the purpose of using them, as in fact they were used, to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual desire of Japanese.
  3. Appellant contends that  the deeds committed by the accused do not constitute treason.
  4. The Solicitor General submits the opposite view, and argues that “to maintain and preserve the morale of the soldiers has always been, and will always be, a fundamental concern of army authorities, for the efficiency of rests not only on its physical attributes but also, mainly, on the morale of its soldiers”

Issue:

Whether or not comandeering of women to the Japanese for their aid and comfort constitute treason – No

Ruling:

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. Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which, in the absence of admission, may be gathered from the nature and circumstances of each particular case.

But the accused may be punished for the rape of Eriberta Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay and Flaviana Bonalos as principal by direct participation. Without his cooperation in the manner above stated, these rapes could not have been committed.

More case digests here: https://kaidarul.com/category/law-school/case-digests

Exit mobile version