Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Issue:
Whether or not by reason of the application and extension of the Amnesty Proclamation
to appellant's acts of economic and political collaboration, his acts of adherence have also been
wiped out.
Ruling:
No, the Court finds the appellant guilty of treason. There is more than sufficient proof of
adherence in the other counts. The entries in his diaries make mention of his countless Japanese
friends in high officialdom, not only among the Japanese civilian entities attached to or
collaborating with the Japanese Armed Forces, but also in the Army and the Navy itself. His diary
records almost daily conferences, interviews, dinners, luncheons, rides, etc. with such Japanese
officials. Some of his conferences and parleys were by himself described as secret.
Regarding this same adherence, had appellant confined himself within the realm of mere
adherence — disloyal state of mind and treasonous thoughts, intentions, and sympathies,
however great may have been the disappointment, disapproval, and even hatred of his
countrymen for such disloyalty to them and to their country, the law and prosecuting officials could
not have taken action against him. Adherence alone is not indictable. But when he translated such
treasonous sympathies and intentions into overt acts of treason such as joining the Makapili,
establishing his military organization Bisig Bakal Ng Tagala and offering its services to take
charge of the maintenance of peace and order, which included the suppression of the guerrillas,
so that the Japanese could concentrate their forces in defending the City of Manila by fighting
against the American and guerrilla forces trying to enter and liberate it, then he (appellant)
breached as it were the walls of allegiance and loyalty which the treason law has erected to
surround and protect the security and integrity of the nation, and he may then be held criminally
liable.