People v. Manayao, 78 Phil.

721 (1947)
[G.R. No. L-322. July 28, 1947. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO MANAYAO, ET

AL., Defendants. PEDRO MANAYAO, Appellant.

J. Antonio Araneta for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Jose B. L. Reyes and Solicitor Ramon L. Avancena
for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; "MAKAPILI" NOT PART OF JAPANESE ARMY. — The Makapili, although
organized to render military aid to the Japanese Army in the Philippines during the late was as not a
part of said army. It was an organization of Filipino traitors, pure and simple.

2. ID; ID.; DEFENSE OF STATE, CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF CITIZEN; CITIZENSHIP CANNOT BE CAST
OFF IN TIME OF WAR. — The constitutional duty of the citizen to defend the State cannot be cast off
when his country is at war, by the simple expedient of subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
the constitution or laws of a foreign country, and an enemy country at that, or by accepting a
commission in the military, naval or air service of such country, or by deserting from the Philippine
Army, Navy, or Air Corps.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — It would shock the conscience of any enlightened citizenry to
say that the appellant, by the very fact of committing the treasonous acts charged against him, the
doing of which under the circumstances of record he does not deny, divested himself of his Philippine
citizenship and thereby placed himself beyond the arm of the treason law. For if this were no, his very
crime would be the shield that would protect him from punishment.

4. ID.; ID.; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; BAND INCLUDES AID OF ARMED MEN. — In

appreciating the existence of a band the . employment of more than three armed men is automatically
included, there being only the aggravating circumstance of band to be considered.

5. ID.; ID.; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDERS DOES NOT INCLUDE
ORDERS FROM A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN. — Paragraphs 5 and 6 of article 11 of the Revised Pen Code
cannot be construed as sanctioning as legal acts done in compliance with duties to or orders from a
foreign sovereign any more than obedience to an illegal order.

DECISION

HILADO, J.:

Appellant Pedro Manayao, Filomeno Flores, and Raymundo Flores were charged with the high crime
of treason with multiple murder in the People’s Court. The Floreses not having been apprehended,
only Manayao was tried. Convicted of the offense charged against him with the aggravating
circumstances of (1) the aid of arm men and (2) the employment or presence of a band in the
commission of the crime, he was sentenced to death to pay a fine of P20,000, an indemnity of P2,000
to the heirs of each of the persons named in the third paragraph of the decision, and the costs.

He has appealed from that decision to this Court.

On or about the January 27, 1944, the guerillas raided the Japanese. In reprisal (revenge), Japanese
soldiers and a number of Filipinos affiliated with the Makapili conceived the diabolical idea of killing the
residents of barrio Banaban of the same municipality. Pursuant to this plan, said Japanese soldiers and
their Filipino companions, armed with rifles and bayonets, gathered residents of Banaban behind the
barrio chapel. Numbering about sixty or seventy, the residents thus assembled included men, women
and children — mostly women.

The children were placed in a separate group from the men and women — the prosecution star
witnesses, Maria Paulino and Clarita Perez, were among the children. Presently, the Japanese
and their Filipino comrades set the surrounding houses on fire, and proceeded to butcher all the
persons assembled, excepting the small children, thus killing, among others, those known by the
following names: Patricia, Dodi, Banda, Tana, Uyang, Mina, Marta, Sana, Eufemia, Doroteo, Andres,
Perly, Tisiang, Urado, Pisan, Dorang, Felisa, and Eulalia.

Appellant alone killed about six women, two of whom were Patricia and Dodi whom he bayoneted to
death in the presence of their daughters, Maria Paulino and Clarita Perez, respectively. Patricia and
Dodi pleaded with appellant for mercy, he being their relative, but he gave the callous answer that no
mercy would be given them because they were wives of guerrillas.

Appellant would also have killed the small children including Clarita Perez and Maria Paulino if he had
been allowed to have his way. For when all but the small ones had been butchered, he proposed to kill
them too, but the Japanese soldiers interceded, saying that the children knew nothing of the matter.
Appellant insisted in his proposal, arguing that the children would be wives of guerrillas later when
they grew up, but the Japanese decided to spare them.

The foregoing facts have been clearly established by the testimony of eye-witnesses — Clarita Paulino,
Maria Perez, and Policarpio Tigas — to the ruthless massacre of Banaban. There is a complete absence
of evidence tending to show motive on the part of these witnesses for falsely testifying against
appellant — such a motive is not even insinuated by the defendant. Indeed, appellant’s counsel
frankly states that he "does not dispute the findings of fact of the People’s Court." Speaking of the
testimony of Clarita and Maria, both aged ten years, the People’s Court, who heard, observed and saw
them testify, had the following to say: “The testimony of the last two in particular is entitled to very
great weight. They are simple barrio girls, only ten years old, whose minds have not yet been tainted
by feelings of hatred or revenge or by any desire to be spectacular or to exaggerate. They were
straight-forward and frank in their testimony and did not show any intention to appeal to the
sentiments of the court. They could not have been mistaken as to the presence and identity of the
accused for they know him so well that they referred to him by his pet name of ’Indong Pintor’ or
Pedro, the painter. They could not have erred in the narration of the salient phases of the tragic
events of January 29, 1945, in Banaban, for they were forced eye-witnesses to and were involved in
the whole tragedy, the burning of the houses and the massacre committed by the accused and his
Japanese masters took place in broad daylight and were not consummated in a fleeting moment but
during a time sufficient for even girls of tender age to retain a trustworthy mental picture of the
unusual event they could not help but witness." cralairtua1aw library

Not only this, but the testimony of Clarita Perez and Maria Paulino is so clear, positive and convincing
that it would be sufficient for conviction without any further corroboration. Yet, there is ample
corroborative proof. Thus, Tomas M. Pablo declared that he had seen the corpses of the massacred
residents of Banaban shortly after the happening of the heinous crime. And appellant himself admitted
his participation in the massacre in two sworn statements — one made on August 28, 1945, before Lt.
Jesus Cacahit, Detachment Commander of the Angat 23d MP Command (Exhibit A; pp. 75-77, t. s. n.)
and another made on September 5, 1945 before Feliciano F. Torres, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of
Bulacan (Exhibits C, C-1; pp. 150-159, t. s. n.) .

Appellant was under military law of Japan and not subject to jurisdiction of People’s court.

Appellant’s counsel contends that appellant was a member of the Armed Forces of Japan, was subject
to military law, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the People’s Court; and in No. 2 he advances the
theory that appellant had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the
Philippine law of treason. We cannot uphold either contention. We are of the considered opinion that
the Makapili, although organized to render military aid to the Japanese Army in the Philippines during
the late war, was not a part of said army. It was an organization of Filipino traitors, pure and simple.
Oath of allegiance to Japanese laws and constitution and lost of Filipino citizenship.
As to loss of Philippine citizenship by appellant, counsel’s theory is absolutely untenable. He invokes in
its support paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 of section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63.

There is no evidence that appellant has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution
or laws of Japan. His counsel cites the fact that he subscribed an oath before he was admitted into the
Makapili association, the aim of which was to help Japan in its fight against the Americans and her
allies. And that the oath was in fact one of allegiance to support the constitution and laws of Japan.
The members of the Makapili could have sworn to help Japan in the war without necessarily swearing
to support her constitution and laws. The famed "Flying Tiger" who so bravely and resolutely aided
China in her war with Japan certainly did not need to swear to support the Chinese constitution and
laws, even if they had to subscribe to an oath, upon entering the organization, to help China fight
Japan. During the first World War the "National Volunteers" were organized in the Philippines, pledged
to go to Europe and fight on the side of the Allies, particularly of the United States. In order to carry
out that mission — although the war ended before this could be done they surely did not have to take
an oath to support the constitution or laws of the United States or any of its allies. We do not multiply
these examples, for they illustrate a proposition which seems self-evident.

Neither is there any showing of the acceptance by appellant of a commission "in the military, naval, or
air service" of Japan.

Much less is there a scintilla of evidence that appellant had ever been declared a deserter in the
Philippine Army, Navy or Air Corps — nor even that he was a member of said Army, Navy, or Air
Corps.

Constitutional provision regarding treason.

Further, appellant’s contention is repugnant to the most fundamental and elementary principles
governing the duties of a citizen toward his country under our Constitution. Article II, section 2, of
said Constitution ordains: "SEC. 2. The defense of the State is a prime duty of government, in
the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by to render personal, military or
civil service."

This constitutional provision covers both time of peace and time of war, but it is brought more
immediately and peremptorily into play when the country is involved in war. During such a period of
stress, under a constitution enshrining such tenets, the citizen cannot be considered free to
cast off his loyalty and obligations toward the Fatherland. And it cannot be supposed, without
reflecting on the patriotism and intelligence of the Legislature that in promulgating Commonwealth Act
No. 63, under the aegis of our Constitution, it intended (but did not declare) that the duties of the
citizen solemnly proclaimed in the above-quoted constitutional precept could be effectively cast off by
him even when his country is at war, by the simple expedient of subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the constitution or laws of a foreign country, and an enemy country at that, or by accepting a
commission in the military, naval or air service of such country, or by deserting from the Philippine
Army, Navy, or Air Corps.

It would shock the conscience of any enlightened citizen to say that this appellant, by the very fact of
committing the treasonous acts charged against him, the doing of which under the circumstances of
record he does not deny, divested himself of his Philippine citizenship and thereby placed himself
beyond the arm of our treason law. For if this were so, his very crime would be the shield that would
protect him from punishment.

"But the laws do not admit that the bare commission of a crime amounts of itself to a
divestment of the character of citizen, and withdraws the criminal from their coercion. They
would never prescribe an illegal act among the legal modes by which a citizen might
disfranchise himself; nor render treason, for instance, innocent, by giving it the force of a
dissolution of the obligation of the criminal to his country." (Moore, International Law
Digest, Vol III, p. 731.)
"696. No person, even when he has renounced or incurred the loss of his nationality, shall
take up arms against his native country; he shall be held guilty of a felony and treason, if
he does not strictly observe this duty." (Fiore’s International Law Codified, translation from
Fifth Italian Edition by Borchard.)

One aggravating circumstances instead of two.

It is improper to separately take into account against appellant the aggravating circumstances of (1)
the aid of armed men and (2) the employment of a band in appraising the gravity of the crime. We
likewise are of the same opinion, considering that under paragraph 6 of article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code providing that "whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band," the employment of
more than three armed men is an essential element of and inherent in a band. So that in appreciating
the existence of a band the employment of more than three armed men is automatically included,
there being only the aggravating circumstance of band to be considered.

Acting in obedience of his Japanese superiors.

The contention is clearly unacceptable that appellant acted in obedience to an order issued by a
superior and is therefore exempt from criminal liability, because he allegedly acted in the fulfillment of
a duty incidental to his service for Japan as a member of the Makapili. It is obvious that paragraphs 5
and 6 of article 11 of our Revised Penal Code cannot be construed as sanctioning as legal acts done in
compliance with duties to or orders from a foreign sovereign, any more than obedience to an illegal
order. The construction contended for by appellant could entail in its potentialities even the
destruction of this Republic.

The contention that as a member of the Makapili appellant had to obey his Japanese masters
underpain of severe penalty, and that therefore his acts should be considered as committed under the
impulse of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, is no less repulsive.
Appellant voluntarily joined the Makapili with full knowledge of its avowed purpose of rendering
military aid to Japan. He knew the consequences to be expected — if the alleged irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear subsequently arose, he brought them about himself freely and voluntarily. But this
is not all; the truth of the matter is, as the Solicitor General well remarks, that "the appellant actually
acted with gusto during the butchers of Banaban." He was on that occasion even bent on more cruelty
than the very ruthless Japanese themselves as regards the little children. And his Japanese matters —
so fate willed it — were the very ones who saved the little girls, Clarita Perez and Maria Paulino, who
were declined to become the star witnesses against him on the day of reckoning.

Conformably to the recommendation of the Solicitor General, we find appellant guilty of the crime of
treason with multiple murder committed with the attendance of one aggravating circumstance, that of
"armed band," thus discarding the first aggravating circumstance considered by the trial court. A
majority of the Court voted to affirm the judgment appealed from, imposing the death penalty,
convicting defendant and appellant to pay a fine of P20,000, an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of
each of victims named in the third paragraph of the lower courts decision, and the costs. But due to
the dissent of Mr. Justice Perfecto from the imposition of the death penalty, in accordance with the
applicable legal provisions we modify the judgment appealed from as regards the punishment to be
inflicted, and sentence defendant and appellant Pedro Manayao to the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
with the accessories of article 41 of the Revised Penal Code, to pay a fine of P20,000, an indemnity of
P2,000 to the heirs of each of the victims named in the third paragraph of the lower court’s decision,
and the costs. So ordered.

Separate Opinions

PARAS, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur in the result because I am convinced that the appellant is guilty of multiple murder and he
even deserves the maximum penalty.

PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The main facts in this case upon which the prosecution relies are based on the testimonies of three
witness two ten-year-old girls, Clarita Perez and Maria Paulino, and Policarpio Tigas.

From the testimony of Maria Paulino we quote: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. You said that you are ten years old, do you know what is the meaning of telling a lie?

A. I do not know.

"Q. Do you know the difference between falsity and truth?

A. I do not know.

x x x

"Q. Do you know how to read?

A. What, Sir?

"Q. How to read.

A. No, Sir.

"Q. Do you know how to pray?

A. I forgot how to pray." (Pages 44 and 45, t.s.n.)

From the testimony of Clarita Perez, we quote: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Please state your name and your personal circumstances.

A. Clarita Perez, 10 years of age, and resident of the sitio of Banaban.

"Q. What town?

A. I do not know.

"JUDGE NEPOMUCENO: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Is Banaban a sitio in the town of Malolos, or Quiñgua, or Bigaa?

A. I do not know.

"Q. You do not know?

A. I do not know, sir.

"JUDGE ABAD SANTOS: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. What province?

A. I do not know." (page 4, t.s.n.)

Witness Policarpio Tigas, municipal policeman, testified that about sixty persons, including his sister
Eufemia, were killed in Banaban, but he was not killed "because I