People vs Adriano

G.R. No. L-477

6/30/1947

Facts:
 During the Japanese occupation in Nueva Ecija, Adriano, a PH citizen with allegiance to the US, has violated
said allegiance by adhering to the Japanese by giving aid and comfort to the enemy by being a member of
Makapili and bore arms and joined the Imperial Forces and Makapili in armed conflicts against the US Armed
Forces and PH Guerillas
 The prosecution did not give any evidence to substantiate any of the facts alleged except that he is a Makapili
member. He was found to have participated in raids and property confiscation. However, the lower courts said
that such acts were not established by two witnesses and was so regarded them merely as evidence to enemy
adherence.
 Through the two-witness rule, it could be inferred that he and other Makapili members were stationed in the
enemy base in Nueva Ecija; he was in a Makapili uniform while armed; he participated in military drills and
was designated as a sentry. When the US invaded, Adriano and his companions retreated to the mountains
but later surrendered.
 Though the witnesses saw him in two different occasions, one thing is certain, Adriano was a Makapili
member and bore arms, however, it cannot be said that one witness corroborated the other if corroboration
meant that two witnesses have seen the accused do one thing, be it a military routine, or just walking or
eating.

Issue: Whether Adriano is guilty of treason by being a member of the Makapili

Ruling:
 The mere fact he joined Makapili is evidence to adherence to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort. It
was a willful act. There was treasonable intent considering the objectives and purpose of Makapili. The
Makapili were "to accomplish the fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Philippines in the Pact of
Alliance with the Empire of Japan;" "to shed blood and sacrifice the lives of our people in order to eradicate
Anglo-Saxon influence in East Asia;"; "to collaborate unreservedly and unstintedly with the Imperial Japanese
Army and Navy in the Philippines;" and "to fight the common enemies."
 Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be proved by witnesses. Mens rea and knowledge may be gathered
from one witness alone or from the nature of the act itself or the circumstances surrounding the act.
 Being a member of such is an overt act. It was unnecessary that Adriano went into battle or made nefarious
acts against his country and people. Treason was committed if he placed himself at the enemy’s call to fight
along side them but never occurred. Such membership is in itself giving aid and comfort. The enemy derived
psychological comfort in the knowledge that it had on its side nationals of a country which they are at war
with.
 It furnished the enemy aid in that his cause was advanced, his forces augmented, and his courage was
enhanced by the knowledge that he could count on men such as the accused and his kind who were ready to
strike at their own people. The principal effect of it was no difference from that of enlisting in the invader's
army.
 However, a Makapili membership must be established by two witnesses. Looking at American law, judicial
interpretation has been placed on the two-witness rule principle in US courts in order to determine that
indeed such act took place. "It is necessary to produce two direct witnesses to the whole overt act. It may be
possible to piece bits together of the overt act; but, if so, each bit must have the support of two oaths; . . .."
"The very minimum function that an overt act must perform in a treason prosecution is that it shows sufficient
action by the accused, in its setting, to sustain a finding that the accused actually gave aid and comfort to the
enemy. Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be
supported by the testimony of two witnesses."
 SC set aside the trial courts decision. The authors of the constitution provision of which our treason law is a
copy purposely made for treason difficult. The provision is exact and uncompromising with regard to the
 amount of evidence, and if only one of the two witnesses is to be believed, he is entitled to be discharged
regardless of the moral conviction of Adriano’s guilt. Logical and natural inferences, no matter how strong and
coming from the most trustworthy witness are unavailing as a substitute for the needed corroboration by
another eyewitness.
 Such is the clear meaning of the two-witness provision of the American Constitution. By extension, the
lawmakers who introduced that provision into the Philippine statute books must be understood to have
intended that the law should operate with the same inflexibility and rigidity as the American forefathers
meant.
 The judgment is reversed and the appellant acquitted with costs charged de oficio.