United States v. Bautista, et al., 6 Phil.

581
G.R. No. L-2189 November 3, 1906
Digested by: Renelin G. Piñon

Doctrine:
Treason, Conspiracy, Insurrection —The fact that one accused, of "conspiracy" to overthrow the Government has
actually and voluntarily accepted appointment by the conspirators as an officer of armed forces, raised or to be
raised for the furtherance of the designs of the conspirators, may be taken into consideration as evidence of the
criminal connection of the accused with the conspiracy.

Facts:
The appellants in this case was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila of the crime of conspiracy to
overthrow the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands and the Government of the Philippine
Islands, as defined and penalized in section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission. Francisco Bautista was
sentenced to four years imprisonment, with hard labor, and $3,000 fine, and Aniceto de Guzman and Tomas Puzon,
and each of them, to three years imprisonment, with hard labor, and a fine of $2,000. During the latter of 1903 a
junta was organized and a conspiracy was entered by a number of Filipino residents in Hong Kong to overthrow said
governments and to establish Republica Universal Democratica Filipina. The conspiracy was headed by Prim Ruiz
and that Artemio Ricarte held meetings in Manila for the conspiracy be hatched in Hong Kong. The conspirators
fought against the officers of the law who were sent against them, but failed. Bautista, a Manila resident, was an
intimate friend of Ricarte, notified by Ricarte of his coming to Manila, Bautista giving him money for the trip,
present in meetings, “held the people in readiness.” Puzon distributed the bonds and appointed certain officials for
the revolutionary forces. Puzon said he only acted to not vex his friend, that “joking tone,” that he did not know
Ricarte was organizing a conspiracy.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellants are guilty.

Held:
No. Puzon himself signed a written statement at the time he was arrested saying he was part of the new revolution
presided over by Ricarte, that he was brigadier-general, chief of signal corps since they were childhood friends.
Puzon did not deny this statement. His confession was clear and in no way supports his pretense that he was excited
as not to know what he was saying when he made it. The accused voluntarily accepted the appointment and in doing
so assumed all obligations implied by such acceptance. “Mere possession of such an appointment, when it is not
shown that the possessor executed some external act by the virtue of the same, does not constitute sufficient proof of
the guilt of the defendant," applies only the case of Enrique Camonas, against whom the only evidence of record
was ‘the fact that a so-called appointment of sergeant was found at his house.’” It may be the case that conspirators
may send appoints to an unsuspecting person in the hope that such person would accept it, and the person is entirely
innocent of all intention to join. A genuine conspiracy must be shown to exist, and it must be proven that accused
voluntarily accepted the appointment. The two-witness rule cannot apply in proving conspiracy to commit treason,
only in treason. Aniceto de Guzman cannot be convicted on his acceptance of a number of bonds from conspirators.
It does not mean he knew about the conspiracy, receiving the wrapped bonds not knowing what they were, then
destroying them thereafter.

Dispositive Position:
We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment and sentence before us, in so far as it affects the said Aniceto de
Guzman, should be reversed, with his proportionate share of the costs of both instances de oficio, and that the said
Anecito de Guzman should be acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and set a liberty forthwith, and that
the judgment and sentence of the trial court, in so far as it applies to Francisco Bautista and Tomas Puzon, should
be, and is hereby, affirmed, except so far as it imposes subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency and
failure to pay their respective fines, and, there being no authority in law of such provision, so much of the sentence
as undertakes to impose subsidiary imprisonment is hereby reversed.