US v. de los Reyes GR No 1434
Topic: Elements of Treason
Facts:
- The defendant was charged of treason by serving as a captain of the Katipunan Society and carried arms in such army and continued in such office and continued to carry arms as aforesaid between the said dates of August 30, 1902, and November 21, 1902
- CFI convicted him of treason
- Katipunan Society, according to a witness is an organization for forming an independent government for the Philippines, not letting their headquarters or whereabouts be known to the American Government, and to gain forces and arms by any means they can; sometimes they use force in securing members. He also said that during an attack they made, he has not seen the defendant.
- Another witness, Cenon Nigdao, allegedly the Secretary of War of the Katipunan Society, held office for a week, testified that he commanded no forces; he gave this commission to the defendant to told him to keep it, and when the time came for them to ask for liberty the people could not do him any harm but did not know that defendant made any use of his commission; that they did not take up arms because they were here in Manila; and that he was living in the same house with the defendant and gave him the commission there.
Issue:
Whether or not the elements of treason are satisfied – No
Ruling:
- The court rejected because the confession of the defendant made to the Constabulary offcier was not made in open court as required by law. Moreover, the testimony of one witness (Cenon Nigdao) that he issued to the defendant the captain’s commission above-mentioned, and the testimony of another witness that he found this commission in the defendant’s trunk, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute that “no person in the Philippine Islands shall under the authority of the United States be convicted of treason . . . unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act .
There is no proof whatever that the accused did any other act in connection with this charge than to receive this commission. On the contrary the “secretary of war” testified that they did not take up arms because they remained here in Manila.
I am of the opinion that the mere acceptance of the commission by the defendant, nothing else being done, was not an overt act of treason within the meaning of the law. Blackstone says that “as treason is the highest civil crime which (considered as a member of the community) any man can possibly commit, it ought, therefore, to be the most freely ascertained.”
The state of affairs disclosed by the evidence — the playing of the game of government, like children, the secretaries and colonels and captains, the pictures of flags and seals and commissions all on paper, for the purpose of duping and misleading the ignorant and the vicious — should be not dignified by the name of treason.
Those engaged in this plotting and scheming in the pretense of establishing an independent government in these Islands, with nothing behind them, without arms or soldiers or money, and without the possibility of success, are simply engaged in deluding themselves and perhaps innocent followers and in filling the cell of Bilibid Prison.
Even though not guilty of treason, they may be tried for other lesser crimes.
More case digests here: https://kaidarul.com/category/law-school/case-digests
