US v Lagnason G.R. No. 1582 March 28, 1904
Topic: Treason (Armed Resistance = Levying of War Against Govt)
Facts:
- The defendant was charged under section 1 of Act No. 292 with the crime of treason, was convicted and sentenced to death.
- Two bands of armed men exist each in Northern part, which was led by the defendant, and Southern part, which was led by a certain Dionisio Papa, of the Province of Negros Occidental.
- The defendant and his band made an attack in Murcia pueblo, but was driven off by constabulary. The defendant was captured and 20 of his men were killed upon another encounter with the constabulary. 2 policemen were also killed. The band consisted between seventy and eighty armed men.
Issue:
Whether an armed resistance to the enforcement of a public law committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of overthrowing the Government was treason – (Yes)
Ruling:
Sections 1 and 3 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission are as follows:
SECTION 1. 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, and, upon conviction, shall suffer death or, at the discretion of the court, shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars.
SEC. 3. Every person who incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or of the Government of the Philippine Islands, or the laws thereof, or who gives aid or comfort to anyone so engaging in such rebellion or insurrection, shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than ten years and he fined not more than ten thousands dollars.
…
No one can believe that the Commission intended to abandoned the well-recognized meaning which the phrase then had and give to it a meaning entirely different. If that had been their intention they would certainly have used other language, so that their intent not to adopt the recognized meaning would have been manifest.
That the acts committed by the defendant constituted a “levying of war” as that phrase was understood at the time the act of the Commission was passed, can not be doubted. Neither can it be doubted that these same acts constituted a “rebellion or insurrection” within the meaning of the third section of Act No. 292. The two sections can only be reconciled in the manner employed in the case against Greathouse, and that decision should be followed.
However, in respect to the penalty, it makes no difference whether the offense called rebellion in section 3 of Act No. 292 in considered an offense different from that of treason defined in section 1, or whether the decision in the case of Greathouse be allowed and the acts punished by section 3 considered as of the same character as those punished by section 1. In either case the punishment can not exceed ten years’ imprisonment and a fine.
There would be difference in respect to evidence to prove the two crimes. If rebellion and insurrection are treason, a defendant can not be convicted under section 3 except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court. (Act of Congress, March 8, 1902, sec. 9.) If they are not treason he could be convicted upon the testimony required in ordinary cases. In United States vs. Greathouse the court held that the constitutional provisions as to two witnesses applied to prosecutions under the second section of the act of 1862 (our sec. 3). It is not necessary, however, to decide that question in this case, as the overt act of the defendant was proved by two witnesses; neither is it necessary to decide whether the omission in section 3 of the phrase “owing allegiance to the United States,” which is found in section 1 taken in connection with section 17 of the act, makes a difference between the two sections in the case at bar the defendant was a native of Cebu and is therefore covered both by section 1 and section 3.
More case digests here: https://kaidarul.com/category/law-school/case-digests
