1.

What if war has ended and the acts of accused clearly occurred after the war, will the accused
still be liable for treason? Yes or no? Give an example.

The second element of treason expressly states that treason can only be committed when
there is a war in which the Philippines is involved. Hence, an act after the war or in times of peace
cannot make a person liable for such offense.

In the concurring opinion of Justice Perfecto in the case of Laurel vs Misa he stated that,

“Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be committed in peace time.
While there is peace, there are no traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns.
Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace, but there are no traitors until war has
started.

As treason is basically a war crime, it is punished by the state as a measure of self-defense

and self-preservation. The law of treason is an emergency measure. It remains dormant until the
emergency arises. But as soon as war starts, it is relentlessly put into effect. Any lukewarm attitude
in its enforcement will only be consistent with national harakiri. All war efforts would be of no
avail if they should be allowed to be sabotaged by fifth columnists, by citizens who have sold their
country out to the enemy, or any other kind of traitors, and this would certainly be the case if he
law cannot be enforced under the theory of suspension.”

2. Can self-defense be a justifying circumstance for treason? Why or why not?

Self-defense is not a justifying circumstance for treason. In the eyes of the law, nothing
will excuse the act of joining an enemy but the fear of immediate death. In the cases of People vs
Bagalawis and People vs Villanueva, the defense of duress and uncontrollable fear were not
appreciated because the accused failed to present evidence that the compulsion or coercion to join
enemy forces was grave and imminent.
The Court cited in Villanueva that, “duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a
defense, must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat to injury is
not enough.”

3. Differentiate between rebellion, treason, and espionage.

Treason is committed only in time of war while rebellion is committed when levying war
against the government in times of peace. Espionage, on the other hand, may be committed both
in time of peace and in time of war.
 Espionage is a crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender while treason and
rebellion are committed by a person who owes allegiance to the government.
Giving aid or comfort to the enemy is not criminal in rebellion, unlike in the crime of
treason. The levying of war must be in collaboration with a foreign enemy to become treason.
If the levying of war is merely a civil uprising, without any intention of helping and external
enemy the crime is rebellion. However, if it is intended to help the enemy by giving them aid or
comfort or relevant information, then such crimes are treason and espionage respectively.

4. Give similarities of the three.

Rebellion is similar to treason in the way that they both levy war against the government.
Espionage is a crime which lends help to the enemy by of gathering, transmitting, or losing
information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is
to be used to the injury of the Republic of the Philippines, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
All three offenses cause disturbance to the government by insurgency or giving aid to the
enemy.