THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

,
DefendantsAppellants.
G.R. No. 2189. November 3, 1906
CARSON, J.
FACTS:
In 1903, a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos in Hongkong,
for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the United States in the Philippine Islands by
force of arms and establishing a new government. Francisco Bautista (1), a close friend of the chief of
military forces (of the conspirators) took part of several meetings. Tomas Puzon (2) held several
conferences whereat plans are made for the coming insurrection; he was appointed Brigadier
General of the Signal Corps of the revolutionary forces. Aniceto de Guzman (3) accepted some bonds
from one of the conspirators. The lower court convicted the three men of conspiracy. Bautista was
sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and a P3,000 fine; Puzon and De Guzman to 3 years
imprisonment and P1,000.
Counsel for appellants 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.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused are guilty of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the
Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands and the Government of the Philippine
Islands.
RULING:
Yes. Bautista and Puzon are guilty of conspiracy.

Bautista was fully aware of the purposes of the meetings he participated in, and even gave an
assurance to the chief of military forces that he is making the necessary preparations. Puzon
voluntarily accepted his appointment and in doing so assumed all the obligations implied by such
acceptance. This may be considered as evidence of the criminal connection of the accused with the
conspiracy. However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy. He might have been helping the
conspirators by accepting bonds in the bundles, but he has not been aware of the contents nor does
he was, in any occasion, assumed any obligation with respect to those bonds.

The court 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