G.R. No. L-953; September 18, 1947
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. PEDRO MARCAIDA, acusado-apelante.

FACTS

Pedro Marcaida was convicted by the People’s Court of the crime of treason and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a fine of P10,000, and costs. He appealed, assigning three errors: 1) that his Filipino citizenship and allegiance to the Commonwealth government were not sufficiently proven; 2) that the trial court erred in giving credit to the prosecution witnesses; and 3) that he was erroneously declared guilty of charge No. 3. The defense contended that the evidence on record did not prove his Filipino citizenship and allegiance. The stenographic transcript stated the accused was “a native of Lopez.” The defense argued the witness testified in Tagalog saying “Taga Lopez” and not “ay panganak sa Lopez,” but this did not appear in the record.

ISSUE

The primary issue resolved by the Court was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the Filipino citizenship of the accused, Pedro Marcaida, which is an essential element of the crime of treason.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the People’s Court and acquitted Pedro Marcaida. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his Filipino citizenship beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court examined the applicable laws on citizenship: the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916. These laws provided that inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects residing therein on April 11, 1899, and their children born subsequently, would be considered citizens of the Philippine Islands, except those who opted to retain Spanish allegiance. The Court reasoned that the accused’s name, Pedro Marcaida, could indicate Filipino, Spanish, or South American origin. There was no proof that he was a resident and a Spanish subject on April 11, 1899. If he was born after that date, his citizenship would depend on his parents’ status, but no evidence was presented on this point. The Court rejected the application of the jus soli (right of soil) principle as absolute in the Philippines, clarifying that under the Philippine Bill, one born in the Philippines is considered a citizen only if he or his parent was a resident and Spanish subject on April 11, 1899. Without such proof, he could be a foreigner. The Court abandoned the doctrine in Roa v. Insular Auditor and aligned with Chua v. Secretary of Labor, which held that mere birth in the Philippines does not confer citizenship if the individual was not a Spanish subject or child of one on the critical date. Since the prosecution did not present evidence to establish the accused’s citizenship under the law, an essential element of treason was not proven, warranting acquittal.
A concurring opinion further argued that the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses for charge No. 3 contradicted each other, making them unreliable under the maxim falsus in unus, falsus in omnibus, and that even without the two-witness rule in treason, there was no legal basis to convict.
A dissenting opinion, joined by three other Justices, argued that the finding of the People’s Court was fully sustained by the testimony of two or more direct witnesses and that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, every man is considered a citizen of the country in which he resides, creating a presumption of Filipino citizenship from the testimony that he was a native of Lopez.