Case Digest (G.R. No. 976)
Facts:
The United States v. Maximo Abad, G.R. No. 976. October 22, 1902, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ladd, J., writing for the Court. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, and Willard, JJ., concur; Smith and Mapa, JJ., did not sit.The United States (complainant and appellee) prosecuted Maximo Abad (defendant and appellant) for the offense defined in section 14 of Act No. 292 of the United States Philippine Commission — the violation of an oath of allegiance given before military or civil officers, in which the affiant engaged to recognize the supreme authority of the United States or to obey its laws and decrees, and who thereafter violates such oath.
Abad was a former insurgent officer who surrendered in April 1901. The trial court found that, at the time of his surrender, Abad had concealed certain rifles by his orders and that later he denied to an officer of the United States Army the existence and whereabouts of those rifles. He was tried and convicted by the court below for violating the oath contained in section 14 of Act No. 292. There is no evidence in the record that the act, if a violation, was committed pursuant to orders from civil or military insurrectionary authorities, or that it arose out of internal political feuds among Filipinos or between Filipinos and Spaniards.
Abad appealed to the Supreme Court seeking relief on the ground that he was entitled to the benefits of a presidential proclamation of amnesty which, by its terms, covered “offenses of treason and sedition.” The Supreme Court revie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the defendant entitled to the benefit of the presidential proclamation of amnesty that covers “offenses of treason and sedition”?
- Does the offense defined in section 14 of Act No. 292 (violation of oath of allegiance) fall outside the proclamation because it is not strictly identical to the technical crimes of treason (§1) or sedition (§5...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)