GR 1881; (April, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1881 : April 25, 1905
PARTIES:
Complainant-Appellee: The United States
Defendants-Appellants: Eusebio de la Serna, et al.
Counsel: Rafael Palma for appellants; Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.
FACTS:
The defendants-appellants, Eusebio de la Serna and Enrique Camoñas, were convicted in the Court of First Instance for the crime of sedition. The information charged them with having, during March and April 1903, publicly and tumultuously, together with other armed individuals, disturbed the peace of Barili, Cebu, with the purpose of destroying property.
On appeal, the prosecution acknowledged that no evidence was presented to substantiate the specific acts of sedition charged. However, the Solicitor-General argued that the defendants should instead be convicted of conspiracy to commit sedition based on the following circumstantial evidence:
1. Against Eusebio de la Serna: A witness testified that de la Serna spoke to him about the pulajanes (a rebel group) but did not make a clear, open invitation to join. Another witness stated that de la Serna and four armed men once visited him, asked for corn courteously, and tried to take him with them for an unknown purpose. A Constabulary sergeant testified that de la Serna claimed to be a “colonel” appointed by unknown people who promised to bring his commission, but de la Serna did not specify the band or its objectives.
2. Against Enrique Camoñas: The only evidence was the discovery of a purported “appointment as sergeant” found in his house.
ISSUE:
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendants for the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition.
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendants.
The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish conspiracy to commit sedition. Regarding Eusebio de la Serna, the testimony about speaking of the pulajanes was a mere belief of the witness, the visit by armed men involved a courteous request for provisions without a clear seditious purpose, and the claim of being a “colonel” was inconclusive as it lacked details about the appointing body or its aims. The Court noted that the record did not contain any confession by de la Serna that he was a member of the pulajanes.
Regarding Enrique Camoñas, the Court reiterated its doctrine from prior cases (U.S. vs. Antonio de los Reyes and U.S. vs. Silverio Nuñez et al.) that the mere possession of a supposed appointment, without proof of any external act performed by virtue of it, does not constitute sufficient evidence of guilt.
Since the evidence failed to prove the defendants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted them and ordered the costs de oficio*.