G.R. No. 1434 : February 23, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ANTONIO DE LOS REYES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Antonio de los Reyes, was charged with the crime of treason. The information alleged that on or about August 30, 1902, in Manila, he accepted a commission as a captain in the regular army of the “Filipinos Republic” and served as such, carrying arms between August 30 and November 21, 1902, against the authority of the United States Government in the Philippine Islands. He was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and a fine.

The prosecution’s evidence consisted of: (1) testimony from a Constabulary detective who detained the defendant, searched his house, and found a revolver and a captain’s commission issued by an entity called the “Supreme Presidency of the Philippine Islands” and signed by “Cenon Nigdao” as Minister of War and “A.G. Del Rosario” as Supreme President; (2) testimony identifying the commission’s seals as belonging to an organization known as the Katipunan or Tagalog Republic; and (3) testimony from Cenon Nigdao himself, who identified his signature and stated he was the “secretary of war” of the Katipunan, which he described as a “National party” aiming to ask the American Government for the country’s freedom by peaceable means. Nigdao also testified that he gave the commission to the defendant but that they did not take up arms in Manila. There was no evidence that the defendant actually commanded troops, engaged in combat, or performed any overt act beyond accepting and possessing the commission. The defendant’s alleged confession to the Constabulary was rejected by the court as inadmissible.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant’s mere acceptance and possession of a commission as a captain in the Katipunan organization, without any other overt act, constitutes treason under the law requiring proof by two witnesses to the same overt act.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendant of treason.

The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for treason. First, the testimony regarding the nature of the Katipunan organization was contradictory, with one witness describing it as a treasonable organization and another (the alleged “secretary of war”) describing it as a peaceful “National party.” Second, and most critically, the requirement for a treason conviction under the applicable law (Act of Congress of March 8, 1902) is proof by two witnesses to the same overt act. Here, the only act proven was the defendant’s acceptance and possession of the commission. The Court ruled that this act alone, without any proof of levying war, adhering to the enemy, or giving them aid and comfortsuch as actually serving in an army, commanding troops, or engaging in hostilitiesdid not constitute an overt act of treason. The activities described were likened to a childish pretense of government, without arms, soldiers, or any real capacity to overthrow the government, and thus should not be dignified as treason. The acquittal was without prejudice to the filing of charges for any other lesser crimes the evidence might support. The Court followed its precedent in U.S. v. Magtibay.