Title
People vs De los Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 1434
Decision Date
Feb 23, 1904
Antonio de los Reyes acquitted of treason; insufficient evidence, no overt acts, and inadmissible confession failed to meet legal standards for conviction.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 1434)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Accusation and conviction
    • The defendant, Antonio de los Reyes, was charged with treason for having “levied war against, adhered to and given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and of the Philippine Islands” by accepting a commission as captain in the “regular army of the Filipino republic” and carrying arms between August 30 and November 21, 1902.
    • He was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.
  • Evidence and proceedings
    • Constabulary detective testimony
      • On November 21, 1902, the officer and a companion detained the defendant in Bacord, Manila, alleged his Katipunan captaincy, obtained an out-of-court confession, and seized a revolver and a sealed captain’s commission from his trunk.
    • Exhibit A – Captain’s commission
      • Dated August 30, 1902, bearing seals and signatures of Cenon Nigdao (Minister of War) and A. G. del Rosario (Supreme President), appointing the defendant as captain in the “regular army of these Philippine Islands.”
    • Characterization of the Katipunan/Tagalog republic
      • Detective described it as a secret organization aiming at armed insurrection for independence.
      • Another witness spoke of a “Tagalog republic” with some 300 armed men.
    • Testimony of Cenon Nigdao (self-styled secretary of war)
      • Identified his signature on Exhibit A; stated the group sought independence “by asking” the American Government without raising arms in Manila; commanded no troops; personally handed the commission to the defendant.
    • Additional prosecution witness
      • Former Bilibid prisoner, member of the “National party,” held a commission for three months but commanded no soldiers; surrendered himself later with one revolver.
    • Confession issue
      • The defendant’s alleged admission to the Constabulary officer was not made in open court and thus violated section 9 of the Act of March 8, 1902.

Issues:

  • Whether the out-of-court confession is admissible under section 9, Act of March 8, 1902, which requires confessions to be made in open court.
  • Whether the evidence—particularly the discovery of the commission—meets the statutory requirement of “two witnesses to the same overt act” of treason.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.