1
Petitioners: US Respondents: Simeon Magtibay G.R. No: 1317 SCRA Location: Click here to enter text. Date: 23 November 1903 Facts: Simeon Magtibay was proven to be a soldier in the Constabulary stationed in Imus, Cavite under Montalon. When he was captured, only the inspector witnessed the commission found, making the respondent a 2 nd lieutenant. Apparently, Montalon ranged a rebellion against the government on that same month and that there were engagements between Montalon’s troops and the Constabulary. Issue: Whether or not respondent may be accused of treason. Ruling: No. Firstly, the respondent may have admitted to the open court of his involvement in the group by force. The confession in open court, upon which a defendant may be convicted of treason under section 9 of the act of Congress of March 8, 1902, is a confession of guilt. The section cannot be extended so as to include admission of fact, from which his guilt may be inferred, made by the defendant in giving his testimony after a plea of not guilty. Secondly, there is only one witness. The testimony of one witness to a confession made by the defendant, to the effect that he had joined the insurrectionary forces, and to the finding upon his person of a commission making a lieutenant in such forces, is insufficient to support a conviction for the crime of treason, as such conviction can only be had upon the testimony of at least 2 witnesses to the same overt act of treason. Khristine Tiu Choose a Subject

US vs Magtibay

  • Upload
    tin

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

US vs Magtibay

Citation preview

Page 1: US vs Magtibay

Petitioners: Respondents: G.R. No: SCRA Location:

Date:

Facts:

Simeon Magtibay was proven to be a soldier in the Constabulary stationed in Imus, Cavite under Montalon. When he was captured, only the inspector witnessed the commission found, making the respondent a 2nd lieutenant. Apparently, Montalon ranged a rebellion against the government on that same month and that there were engagements between Montalon’s troops and the Constabulary.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent may be accused of treason.

Ruling:

No. Firstly, the respondent may have admitted to the open court of his involvement in the group by force. The confession in open court, upon which a defendant may be convicted of treason under section 9 of the act of Congress of March 8, 1902, is a confession of guilt. The section cannot be extended so as to include admission of fact, from which his guilt may be inferred, made by the defendant in giving his testimony after a plea of not guilty.

Secondly, there is only one witness. The testimony of one witness to a confession made by the defendant, to the effect that he had joined the insurrectionary forces, and to the finding upon his person of a commission making a lieutenant in such forces, is insufficient to support a conviction for the crime of treason, as such conviction can only be had upon the testimony of at least 2 witnesses to the same overt act of treason.

Khristine TiuChoose a Subject