G.R. No. 2198 , April 19, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. SILVERIO NUÑEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
A corporal of the Constabulary, pretending to be a member of the insurgent forces, went to a small visita in Ambos Camarines. He assembled the five defendants and informed them that the insurgent general was planning an attack on Nueva Caceres and had ordered all his lieutenants to present their commissions. Each defendant then produced a document purporting to be an appointment as a lieutenant in the band of General Jose Roldan. The corporal immediately arrested them. They were charged with the crime of brigandage. The only evidence presented by the prosecution was their possession of these appointments. The defendants testified that they had each been separately approached by armed men while working in their fields and were compelled under duress to accept the commissions. There was no evidence that they had ever acted under these appointments or had any other connection with the band.

ISSUE:
Is the mere possession of an appointment as an officer in an insurgent band, without any evidence of acting under it, sufficient to convict a person of the crime of brigandage?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendants. The Court ruled that the mere physical possession of an insurgent appointment, without any proof that the holder ever acted pursuant to it, does not constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for brigandage. This ruling is analogous to the principle in treason cases, where the mere possession of a commission is not considered an “overt act.” Since there was no evidence that the defendants had united with or acted in connection with the band, their convictions could not stand.