THE UNITED STATES VS.

DALMACIO LAGNASON,
[ G.R. No. 1582, March 28, 1904 ] 3 Phil. 472
Villa-Abrille, Trisha Marie

Facts:
Lagnason, the defendant, with his band, made an attack upon the pueblo of
Murcia in the Province of Occidental Negros but they were driven off by the force of
Constabulary there stationed. Two inspectors of the latter arrived with additional fortes
and left the pueblo in search of the defendant. A fight lasted an hour and a half which
killed twenty of his men and two policemen. Consequently, the defendant was captured
in battle.

Issue: Whether or not the acts of Lagnason constitute?

Ruling:
Yes, the acts of violence committed by Lagnason and his band constitute
treason.

Section 1 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission provides that every
person, resident in the Philippine Islands, owing allegiance to the United States, or the
Government of the Philippine Islands, who levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is
guilty of treason. In this case, the defendant’s organized attempt to overthrow and
destroy the established government is a levying of war against the government. It does
not matter how vain and futile his attempt was. Lagnason is guilty of treason.

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 856 (1947)

Facts:
In G. R. No. L-409, Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the
petition for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on the theory that a
Filipinocitizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the
Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and
penalized by article 114of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the sovereignty
of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative
allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended.
Issue:
Whether or not the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines
was then suspended
Held:
No.
Ratio:
The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied
by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed
by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de
jure is not transferred hereby to the occupier, and if it is not transferred to the occupant
it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty
vested in the titular government(which is the supreme power which governs a body
politic or society which constitute the state.