FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5126. September 2, 1909. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CATALINO APOSTOL, Defendant-
Appellant.
Francisco Ortigas for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ARSON; EDIFICE USED AS DWELLING. — The words "Edifice used as a dwelling"
in paragraph 1 of article 553 of the Penal Code, signify and edifice intended for human
habitation, in an uninhabited place, at a time when it is unoccupied.
DECISION
ARELLANO, C.J. :
The judgment entered in this case by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija finds
that on the 16th of December, 1907, five individuals, among them being the accused
herein, went to the house where Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino
Manipul were living, and there inquired after some carabaos that had disappeared, and
because these above-mentioned inmates answered that they knew nothing about the
matter, ordered them to leave the house, but as the three men named above refused to
do so, the accused, Catalino Apostol, set fire to the hut and the same was burnt down.
In the opinion of the trial court the responsibility of the accused has been fully
established by the testimony of the injured parties. And inasmuch as,, according to the
same, the act comes within the provisions of article 549 of the Penal Code, Catalino
Apostol was sentenced to sixteen years and one day of cadena temporal, to the
accessories of the law, to indemnity the value of the burnt hut in the sum of P1, and to
pay the costs.
An appeal having been taken to this court, the defense claimed, on behalf of the
offender: (1) The absence of proof of criminal intent; (2) that in view of the fact that the
burnt hut was situated in an uninhabited place, it is not proper to apply article 549, but
article 554 of the Penal Code.
Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the
part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary
shall appear. (Art. 1, Penal Code.)
As to the circumstances connected with the burning of the hut, Pedro Tabilisima
testified that he and his friends were in the same; that the accused and his companions
arrived at 8 p.m. and questioned them about carabaos that they said had been stolen
from them; that after they replied that they knew nothing, the former set fire to the house
and they jumped out of it; that the witness and two companions lived in the house; that it
was situated in an uninhabited place, surrounded by fields; that the nearest houses
were far away, and cries could not be heard from one house to another; and that the
burnt house was not worth more than P1, because it was a small one, the witness
himself having constructed it.
Celestino Vergara says that several individuals arrived at 8 o’clock at night, asked them
for carabaos that they claimed to have lost, wounded Tranquilino Manipul, who was
asleep, and Pedro Tabilisima, forced them to leave the house, and as they did not want
to do so for fear of being assaulted the accused set fire to the same; they tried to put out
the fire as long as they could, but when no longer able jumped out of the house. The
house was in an uninhabited locality, in the fields, the nearest house being a small store
to which the cry of a person might carry, and the neighboring houses could be seen.
Tranquilino Manipul testified in almost the same terms as this last witness. The
argument which the defense advances, based on article 554, which in connection with
553 punishes the setting fire to a building intended for habitation, in an uninhabited
place, does not apply, because the article in question refers to an edifice intended for
human habitation in an uninhabited place at a time when the same is unoccupied. It is
article 549, which punishes with the very severe penalties of cadena temporal to cadena
perpetua "those who shall set fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port,
with knowledge that one or more persons were within the same," that must be applied.
The law must be applied as laid down in the abovequoted excerpt.
But the court, in view of the nature of the crime and considering the circumstances
attending the same, recognizes the extreme severity of the penalty; therefore we apply
the remedy afforded it by article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, when a strict
application of the provisions of the code would result in an excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime.
For the reasons above set forth the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with
costs against the Appellant. Ten days from date let a confirming judgment be entered,
and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the lower court for action.
Without prejudice to the immediate execution of the judgment, let the clerk of this court,
as provided in the said article 2 of the Penal Code, respectfully address a
communication to the Honorable, the Governor-General of these Islands, giving the
result of this decision and the sentence, requesting him, should he so desire, to make
use of the prerogative with which he is invested in order to reduce or mitigate the
penalty imposed. So ordered.
Torres, Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.
