Related Provisions:

US v Bautista et. al. 

Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Felony Act No. 292 of the Phil. Commission
Date: 1906, Nov 3 Sec. 4. If two or more persons
Ponente:Carson, J conspire to overthrow, put down or
destroy by force, the Government of
the United States in the Philippine
SUMMARY: that the necessary preparations had been made Islands or the Government of the
Philippine Islands, or by force to
Francisco Bautista, Aniceto de Guzman and Tomas and that he "held the people in readiness." prevent, hinder or delay, the
Puzon convicted of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, 6.  Tomas Puzon accepted a commission as
execution of any law of the United
and destroy by force the Gov’ Gov ’t of the US in the Phil. brigadier-general offered from Jose R. Muñoz, a States or of the Philippine Islands, or
Islands and the Gov’
Go v’tt of the Phil. Islands leader in the movement; when the insurrection by force to seize, take, or possess,
was nearing, Puzon held meetings with Muñoz any property of the United States or
ISSUES: where plans were made for the coming of the Government of the Philippine
1.  WON Francisco Bautista was guilty of conspiracy insurrection; Islands, contrary to the authority
Gov’t 
to overthrow the Gov’t  7.  Aniceto de Guzman’s
Guzman ’s conviction rests upon his thereof, [act*] of such persons shall
2.  WON Aniceto de Guzman was guilty of acceptance of a number of bonds from one of be punished by a fine of not more
conspiracy to overthrow the Gov’t 
Gov’t   the conspirators (such bonds were for the than [five*] thousand dollars, and by
imprisonment, with or without hard
3.  WON Tomas Puzon was guilty of conspiracy to raising of funds). labor, for a period not more than six
Gov’t 
overthrow the Gov’t 
years.

FACTS: HOLDING: (*words enclosed not exact; no clear

1.  In 1903 a junta was organized by Filipino copy in the internet)
residents in Hongkong, for the purpose of Yes.  Evidence on record sufficiently proves Francisco
Yes. 
overthrowing the Gov’t in the Philippines. guilt. 
Bautista’s guilt. 
2.  Prim Ruiz was recognized as titular head,
Artemio Ricarte as chief of the m ilitary forces; Yes. Puzon claimed he never joined the conspiracy, that
3.  December 1903, Ricarte came to Manila and he accepted his commission as brigadier-general with no

held meetings in Manila and adjoining
provinces; at these meetings new members
were engaged and plans made for the
organization of an army and for raising of
money;
4.  Conspirators did in fact take the field but was
unsuccessful;
5.  Francisco Bautista, a Manila resident, was an
intimate friend of the said Ricarte; facilitated
Ri
Ricarte’s
carte’s arrival in Manila by forwarding money;
intention of ever taking further action, and merely
because he did not wish to vex his friend Muñoz.
However, his statements were contrary to written
statement signed by him when he was first arrested.
Counsel 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 in the light of the decisions in the cases of US vs.
Antonio de los Reyes, US vs. Silverio Nuñez, US vs.

took part
and at onein of
the meetings
these of the
meetings conspirators,
assured Ricarte Eusebio de la Serna, and United States vs. Bernardo
Manalo. Doctrine in these cases being that 
that   mere
possession of a commission in a revolutionary army,
without any other overt act, is not sufficient proof of
guilt of the defendant.

But where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have

existed, and it is proven that the accused voluntarily
accepted an appointment as an officer in that
conspiracy, this fact may properly be taken into
consideration as evidence of his relations with the
conspirators.

No.  Evidence does not sustain conviction of Aniceto de

No. 
Guzman. It does not appear that he knew of the
existence of the conspiracy or that, when he received
the bonds wrapped in a bundle, he knew what it
contained, nor that he ever assumed any obligation with
respect to these bonds. He, himself, states that when he
opened the bundle and discovered the contents he
burned them, and that he never had any dealings with
the conspirators connected to the conspiracy.

Additionally, imposition subsidiary imprisonment in the

event of insolvency and failure to pay their respective
fines is set aside there being no authority in law of such
provision.

RULING:

Judgment and sentence of the trial court, with regard

Aniceto de Guzman, reversed; De Guzman acquitted

Judgment and sentence, with regards to Francisco

Bautista and Tomas Puzon, affirmed except imposition
of subsidiary imprisonment