People v. Bernardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Inocencio Bernardo was charged with treason on eight counts. Counts I and VI alleged his membership in the ganap and makapili organizations and his collaboration with the Empire of Japan and the Imperial Japanese Forces. The other counts pertained to the arrests of Bibiano Azores, Marcelino Reyes, Eustaquio Santos, Elpidio Cruz, and Sebastian Raymundo, who were suspected of being guerrillas or guerrilla sympathizers. The People's Court found the arrests of Eustaquio Santos and Elpidio Cruz, along with Bibiano Azores, to be established, dismissing the other charges for insufficient proof. Procedural History: The People's Court found established, without doubt, the arrests of Bibiano Azores, Eustaquio Santos, and Elpidio Cruz by the accused and his companions. The court dismissed the other charges for want of proof. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Inocencio Bernardo, appealed his conviction for treason.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony regarding the arrest of Eustaquio Santos satisfies the Two-Witness Rule for treason. Whether the accused lost his Philippine citizenship by swearing allegiance to the Japanese Empire during the occupation.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the judgment of the People's Court with modifications to the sentence, imposing reclusion perpetua and a fine of P7,000. The conviction for treason was upheld based on the established arrests of Eustaquio Santos and Elpidio Cruz, and the Court ruled that swearing allegiance to a foreign government does not automatically result in the loss of Philippine citizenship.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the arrest of Eustaquio Santos (Count IV) was sufficiently proven by the testimony of two witnesses, Pedro Santos and Eleuteria Bautista. Pedro Santos, the victim's father, identified Bernardo as one of the armed men present during the arrest, while Eleuteria Bautista, the victim's mother, positively identified the accused as one of the men who entered their house and tied her son. The Court emphasized that in treason, it is the 'overt act' that requires two witnesses, and both parents testified to the same event—the apprehension of their son by a group including the accused. Minor discrepancies in their testimony, such as the exact physical actions of each participant during the apprehension, were attributed to the witnesses' emotional distress and did not impair their identification of the appellant. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the other arrests (Counts II and V) failed the two-witness threshold and thus could only be treated as proof of adherence to the enemy, not as independent overt acts for conviction. On Issue 2: The Court rejected the contention that the accused had lost his Philippine citizenship. Citing the established doctrine in People vs. Manayao (78 Phil. 721), the Court ruled that a Filipino citizen cannot divest himself of his nationality by swearing allegiance to an enemy during a state of war. Such an act of expatriation is not recognized under Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 63 when performed to aid the enemy or evade the consequences of treasonous conduct. The Court held that the duty of allegiance is permanent and is not suspended even during a period of foreign military occupation. Since Bernardo remained a Filipino citizen throughout the occupation, he was legally capable of committing treason and was subject to the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for treason based on the established arrests of Eustaquio Santos and Elpidio Cruz, applying the two-witness rule and upholding the credibility of witnesses despite minor inconsistencies, while also ruling that swearing allegiance to a foreign government does not automatically result in loss of Philippine citizenship.