US vs.

BAUTISTA
United States vs. Francisco Bautista et al
November 3, 1906
Carson, J.

Short version: Bautista, de Guzman and Puzon were convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the US govt in Manila. They
were in fact found to have been involved in several meetings where the conspiracy to overthrow the government was
made. Puzon, in particular, was found to have been appointed as a brigadier-general of the revolution army. However,
Puzon asserted that he only accepted the position (1) without the intention of taking further action and (2) in order not to
vex his friend who offered the position. Puzons counsel contended that the constitutional provision requiring the
testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court, to support a conviction for the crime
of treason should be applied.

Court denied appeal. The crime of conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense from the crime of
treason. In holding that Puzon was a conspirator, the Court considered that a genuine conspiracy was shown to have
existed in this case, and it was proven that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment as an officer in that
conspiracy.

FACTS

Francisco Bautista, Aniceto de Guzman and Tomas Puzon were convicted in CFI Manila of the crime of conspiracy to
overthrow, put down and destroy by force the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands, as defined and
penalized in Section 4 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.

During the latter part of 1903, a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipino residents in
Hongkong for the purpose of overthrowing the US govt in the Philippines by force of arms and establishing in its stead a
government to be known as the Republica Universal Democratica Filipina. Prim Ruiz was recognized as the titular head of
this conspiracy and Artemio Ricarte as the chief of the military forces to be organized.

On December 1903, Ricarte secretly came to Manila from Hongkong. After his arrival, he held a number of meetings in
Manila and the adjoining provinces whereat was perfected the conspiracy hatched in Hongkong. At these meetings, new
members were taken into the conspiracy and plans were made for the enlistment of an army and the raising of money by
national and private loans. To this end, bonds were issued and commissions as officers in the revolutionary army were
granted to a number of conspirators. The conspirators did in fact take the field and offered armed resistance to the
constituted authorities in the Philippines, only failing in their design of overthrowing the government because of their
failure to combat successfully with the officers of the law who were sent against them and of the failure of the people to
rise en masse in response to their propaganda.

Tomas Puzon; teacher of primary and secondary schools:

United with the conspirators thru Jose Munoz, a prime leader of the movement
Puzon held several conferences with Munoz whereat plans were made for the coming insurrection
In one conference, Munoz offered Puzon a commission as brigadier-general of the signal conference. Puzon
assured Munoz that he had things in readiness, meaning thereby that he had duly organized in accordance with
the terms of his commission.

Puzon appealed his conviction, saying that:

:
he had never united himself with the conspirators
He had accepted the appointment as brigadier-general with no intention of ever taking any further action in the
matter and merely because he did not wish to vex his friend Munoz by refusing to do so.
When Munoz offered him the appointment as brigadier-general, he did so in a joking tone and Puzon did not
know that Ricarte was in Manila organizing the conspiracy.

ISSUE: Whether Puzon is guilty of conspiracy in view of his claims that he only took on the role of brigadier-general with
no intention of taking further action --- YES, conspiracy is different from treason

REASONING

Puzons claims on appeal cannot be accepted as true in view of a written statement signed by Puzon at the time he was first
arrested, which reads in part:
Q. Are you a part of his new revolution presided over by Ricarte? - A. Yes, sir.
 Q. What is the employment ( empleo) which you have in this organization, and who is it who invited you to
join it? - A. J. R. Muoz, who is general of division of this new organization, spoke to me with much
instance, asking me to accept employment as brigadier-general, chief of signal corps, to which I, on
account of his request and in view of the fact that the said Muoz is a friend of mine from my youth,
acceded; nevertheless I have organized absolutely nothing in respect to this matter.
Q. Did you accept the employment and did they give you any commission for it? - A. Yes, sir; I accepted
said employment and although they gave me an order to organize in my brigade I did not do it, because I
had neither the confidence nor the will.
Q. If you didn't have faith in the said authorization nor the will to carry out what was intrusted to you, why
did you accept employment as general of the brigade? - A. I accepted it on account of friendship and not to
vex a friend, but I never have the intention of fulfilling the obligations.

Puzon, when on the stand in his own behalf, did not deny that he made this statement, but he attempted to explain it away
by saying that when he made it he was so excited that he did not know just what he was saying. He does not allege that
improper means were taken to procure the confession, and it was proven at the trial that it was freely and voluntarily
made and not the result of violence, intimidation, threat, menace, or promise of reward or leniency. Puzon appears to be
an intelligent man and was for eighteen years a school-teacher and later a telegraph operator under the Spanish
Government, and during the insurrection he held a commission as an officer in the signal corps of the revolutionary army.
His confession is clear and intelligible and in no way supports his pretense that he was so excited as not to know what he
was saying when he made it, and its truth and accuracy in so far it inculpates him is sustained by other evidence of record
in this case.

Puzon contended that the acceptance or possession of an appointment as an officer of the military forces
of the conspiracy should not be considered as evidence against him, citing several US cases.

The Court, however, found the case at hand to be distinguished from such cited cases by the fact that the record clearly
disclose that the accused actually and voluntarily accepted the appointment in question and in doing so assumed all the
obligations implied by such acceptance, and that the charge in this case is that of conspiracy, and the fact that the accused
accepted the appointment is taken into consideration merely as evidence of his criminal relations with the conspirators.

US vs. Reyes: Accused was charged with treason. Court found that mere acceptance of a commission by the defendant,
nothing else being done by him or by his companions, was not an overt act of treason within the meaning of the law.

US vs. Nunez et al: Accused were charged with brigandage. Court held that aside from the possession of commissions in
an insurgent band, there was no evidence to show that it they had committed the crime and, "moreover, that it appeared
that they had never united with any party of brigands and never had been in any way connected with such parties unless
the physical possession of these appointments proved such relation," and that it appeared that each one of the defendants
"were separately approached at different times by armed men while working in the field and were virtually compelled to
accept the commissions."

US vs. dela Serna et al: The mere possession of an appointment (as colonel of the pulajanes), when it is not shown that
the possessor executed some external act by the virtue of the same, does not constitute sufficient proof of guilt of the
defendant.

It is quite conceivable that a group of conspirators might appoint a person in no wise connected with them to some high
office in the conspiracy, in the hope that such person would afterwards accept the commission and thus unite himself with
them, and it is even possible that such an appointment might be forwarded in the mail or otherwise, and thus come into
the possession of the person thus nominated, and that such appointment might be found in his possession, and,
notwithstanding all this, the person in whose possession the appointment was found might be entirely innocent of all
intention to join the conspiracy, never having authorized the conspirators to use his name in this manner nor to send such
a commission to him.

But where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in this case, and it is proven that the accused
voluntarily accepted an appointment as an officer in that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly
be taken into consideration as evidence of his relations with the conspirators.

Counsel for Puzon contend that the constitutional provision requiring the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same
overt act, or confession in open court, to support a conviction for the crime of treason should be applied in this case, but
this court has always held, in conformance with the decisions of the Federal courts of the United States, that the crime of
conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense from the crime of treason, and that this
constitutional provision is not applicable in such cases.

Judgment affirmed.