People v. Valdes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning of April 28, 1918, smoke was observed issuing from the lower floor of the house at No. 328, San Rafael Street, San Miguel, Manila, occupied by M. D. Lewin and his family. The servant, Paulino Banal, discovered a burning piece of jute sack and a rag soaked in kerosene oil placed between a post and a partition of the entresol. The defendant, Severino Valdes, was in the entresol cleaning, while Hugo Labarro was cleaning horses. Procedural History: The prosecuting attorney filed a complaint charging Severino Valdes y Guilgan and Hugo Labarro y Bunaladi with arson. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment sentencing Severino Valdes y Guilgan to six years and one day of presidio mayor and to pay one-half of the costs. The proceedings against Hugo Labarro were dismissed with the other half of the costs de officio. The Petition: The defendant Severino Valdes appealed the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts of the defendant constitute frustrated arson of an inhabited house. Whether the defendant's confession and subsequent denials are sufficient to establish guilt. Whether the penalty imposed is proper.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the modification that the penalty imposed upon the defendant shall be eight years and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed in Article 57 of the Code. The defendant shall also pay the costs of both instances.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of the crime: The act of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag soaked with kerosene oil, placed beside an upright of the house and a partition of the entresol, thus endangering the burning of the latter, constitutes the crime of frustrated arson of an inhabited house. This is because the defendant performed all the acts conceived to the burning of said house, but nevertheless, owing to causes independent of his will, the criminal act which he intended was not produced. The offense cannot be classified as consummated arson for the reason that no part of the building had yet commenced to burn, although the partition might have started to burn had the fire not been put out on time. On the defendant's confession and denials: The defendant admitted in an affidavit that he made declarations in the police station. Although he denied at the trial having set fire to the sacks and the rag, and without proof, blamed his co-defendant, the fact remains that he confessed to having set fire to a pile of dry leaves, which caused smoke to arise from the lower part of the house. The Court found conclusive proof that it was he who committed the unlawful act, as it was also he who was guilty of having set other fires in said house. The accusation he made against the servant Paulino (apparently the same person as the driver Hugo Labarro) was unsubstantiated. On the penalty: There being no extenuating or aggravating circumstances to be considered, the penalty of presidio mayor immediately inferior in degree to that specified in Article 549 of the Penal Code should be imposed in its medium degree. The Court modified the penalty to eight years and one day of presidio mayor, with accessory penalties, as prescribed by Article 57 of the Code.
Main Doctrine
The act of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag soaked with kerosene oil, placed near a structural support of an inhabited house, constitutes frustrated arson, as all acts to burn the house were performed, but the intended criminal act did not materialize due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will. The crime is not consummated arson if no part of the building has yet begun to burn.