PEOPLE VERSUS ABAD

78 Phil 766
G.R. No. L-430
30 July 1947

PERFECTO, J.:

Ratio: The two (2)-witness rule in proving treason must be observed in each and every external manifestation of the overt
act in issue. Different [overt] acts done with a single purpose cannot be constituted as one single act. Each overt act of
treason, although done with the same purpose, should be, respectively, proven by at least two (2) witnesses.

FACTS:

Francisco Abad was found guilty with three (3) counts of treason by giving aid and comfort to the Empire
of Japan and the Japanese Imperial Forces.

In the first count, the prosecution presented as witnesses Magno Ibarra and his wife, Isabel. Isabel
testified that Francisco, accompanied by his brother and Japanese soldiers, went to their house and
demanded Magno’s surrender of a revolver. At the time, Magno was not at the house. Moreover, Magno
testified that Francisco demanded him to produce the revolver while at the garrison.

In his appeal, Francisco raised that the lower court erred in finding him guilty on the first count because
there was only a single witness, respectively, to the overt acts of treason alleged. Magno could not
corroborate Isabel’s statement as to Francisco’s coming to their house because Magno was not there at the
time. Also, Isabel could not corroborate Magno’s statement that Francisco demanded the former to
produce the revolver at the garrison because she was not there at the time.

The Solicitor General advances the theory that where the overt act is simple, continuous, and composite,
made up of, or proved by several circumstances, and passing through stages, it is not necessary that there
should be two (2) witnesses to each circumstance at each stage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the theory of the Solicitor General is correct;

RULING:

No, the theory of the Solicitor General is not correct. The two (2)-witness rule must be adhered to in each
and every external manifestation of the overt act in issue. Francisco’s going to the Ibarra house, in search
of the revolver, is a single overt act, distinct and independent from his overt act in requiring Magno, when
the latter was at the garrison, to produce the revolver. The searching of the revolver in the Ibarra house is
one thing, and the requiring to produce the revolver in the garrison is another. Although both acts may
logically be presumed to have answered the same purpose, that of confiscating Magno’s revolver, the
singleness of purpose is not enough to make one of two acts. Conversely, there should have been two (2)
witnesses each to the said overt acts.

Consequently, the lower court erred in not pronouncing that the first count was not proven and in
subsequently ruling Francisco as guilty thereof.