US vs.
LAGNASON banners, but did carry two large wooden crosses which were
March 28, 1904
Ponente: Willard, J.
ISSUE/S and RULING:
Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission:
Sec. 1. Every person, resident in the Philippine Islands, owing
allegiance to the United States, or Government of the Philippine Islands, who
levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere is guilty of treason, and
upon conviction shall suffer death or, at the discretion of the court, shall be
imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years and fined not less than
ten thousand dollars.
Sec. 3. Every person who incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages
in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or the laws thereof, or who gives aid
or comfort to anyone engaging in such rebellion or insurrection, shall, upon
conviction be imprisoned for not more than ten years and be fined not more
than ten thousand dollars.
FACTS:
On October 29, 1902, Dalmacio Lagnason (defendant) with his
band (Babaylanes which camped in the northern part) of men in
arms against the Government of the United States made an attack
upon the pueblo of Murcia in Province of Occidental Negros. They
were however driven off by the force of Constabulary. (Note: there
is a similar band, the one led by Dionisio Papa, camped in the
southern part)
Two inspectors of the Constabulary arrived with additional forces
and left the pueblo in search of the defendant. They located him
about three kilometers from the pueblo (Iglauaan).
Their fight lasted an hour and a half. The defendant was captured
in battle and had a Springfield rifle, a revolver, and a talibon. About
twenty of his men were killed. On the side of the Constabulary,
two policemen of the vicinity (Tranquilano Toscano and Lazaro
Quiachon) who were acting as guides were killed.
The defendants band consisted of 70-80 men who had for arms
five or ten rifles, bolos, daggers, and one small cannon. They wore
black shirts, white pantaloons, and black caps. They carried no
captured together with the cannon.
1. W/N their acts constitute a levying of war? YES
The acts of violence committed by an armed body of men
with the purpose of overthrowing the Government was
levying war against the United States was treason,
whether it was done by ten men or thousand men. (US vs.
Hanway)
o No distinction was anywhere made between a
foreign enemy and a rebel or insurgent so far as
the act of levying of war is concerned.
o The defendant was engaged in an attempt to
overthrow the Government and was captured
after an armed contest. It does not matter how
vain and futile his attempt was; the acts
performed by him constituted a levying of war.
2. W/N the penalty for the crime of insurrection should be imposed
in accordance with Sec. 3 of Act No. 292? YES
Justice Field in US vs. Greathouse: the intent of Congress
in Sec. 2 of Act of July, 17, 1862 (now Sec. 5334 of Revised
Statutes and Sec. 3 of Act No. 292) is 2) to punish
treason thereafter committed with death, or fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of court, unless the
treason consist in engaging in or assisting a rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the US in which
event the death penalty is to be abandoned and a less
penalty inflicted.
The acts committed by the defendant constituted a
levying of war as that phrase was understood at the time
the act of the Commission was passed. However, these
same acts constituted rebellion or insurrection within
the meaning of Sec. 3 of Act No. 292.
Notwithstanding the fact that Congress does have the
power to fix the penalty for this crime and the
construction placed upon the act of July 17, 1862, in the
 case of Greathouse was that under both sections, the
offense constitute treason, but when the treason
consisted of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion, it
could be punished only by imprisonment for not more
than ten years in accordance with Sec. 3 of Act 292.
It is not necessary to decide on whether testimony of two
witnesses to the same overt act is required or whether
testimony required in ordinary cases is enough. In this
case, the overt act was proved by two witnesses.
The defendant is also a native of Cebu and is therefore
covered both by Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.
If the intention is to utterly overthrow the Government and
establish another independent government, the offense is treason.
If the intention was simply to obstruct and resist the authority of
US or the Government of the Philippines, or the laws thereof, the
offense is rebellion or insurrection.
The defendant constituted not only a warlike assemblage, carrying
the appearance of force in a situation to practice hostilities, but
hostilities actually resulted.
There was levying of war; therefore, the punishment under Section
1 of Act No. 292 (death or imprisonment and fine under courts
discretion) should be inflicted.

**The judgment is affirmed with a change of the penalty, however, from Torres, J., dissenting:
death to ten years and a fine of $10,000, money of the United States, with The chiefs and the leaders of the rebellion should be punished
the costs of this instance against the defendant. according to Section 1 of the law, but their subordinates and those
who only take a secondary part in the acts of war or rebellion
McDonough, J.: should be punished in accordance with Section 3 of the same act.
The crime committed is that of insurrection, and that the
conviction should be had under Sec. 3 of Act No. 292 for
insurrection.
It was the intention of the law-making body to create a crime of a
less degree and of less magnitude than that of levying war against
the Government, which new crime was designated as rebellion or
insurrection.

Johnson, J., dissenting:

The facts are sufficient to indicate that the said defendant, with his
associates, intended to overthrow the Government of the United
States, as constituted in the said town of Murcia in the Province of
Occidental Negros. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of the crime
of treason.
Treason may be defined as an organized effort on the part of those
who owe allegiance to a government to overthrow their
government and to establish either another one or lawlessness.
Insurrection is a resistance by unlawful means to the operation of
some particular law or to the constituted authorities.

Cooper, J., dissenting: