People v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 3, 1929, at past midnight, Miguel Dayrit noticed his thatched roof was on fire. While attempting to extinguish it, he saw the appellant, Antonino Hernandez, beside the house carrying a stick. Dayrit shouted for help, and Artemio Tanglao and Daniel Mallari responded. Tanglao saw the defendant running away, and Mallari met the defendant on his way to the house. The appellant knew Dayrit and his children were inside. Procedural History: The trial court convicted the appellant of frustrated arson and sentenced him to eight years and one day of presidio mayor. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant contested the conviction and sentence.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed was consummated arson or frustrated arson. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should be considered. Whether the penalty of life imprisonment is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court. It found the appellant guilty of consummated arson, committed in a dwelling with the knowledge that the offended party and his children were inside. Considering the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with the accessaries of law, and costs. A copy of the decision was ordered to be forwarded to the Governor-General for consideration of executive clemency due to the appellant's age and the slight damage caused.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the crime was consummated arson or frustrated arson: The Court held that the crime of arson was consummated because the appellant did, in fact, set fire to the roof of the house, and the house was partially burned. The consummation of arson does not depend on the extent of the damage caused, but on the act of starting the fire. Once the fire has been started, the crime is consummated, even if it is subsequently extinguished. This principle was affirmed by citing previous rulings in United States vs. Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho and United States vs. Po Chengco. On the aggravating circumstance of nighttime: The Court considered the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, stating that it was "doubtless sought by the appellant in order to insure the commission of the crime." This circumstance, when present, calls for the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree. On the appropriate penalty: Given that the crime was consummated arson committed in a dwelling with the knowledge of the presence of occupants, and considering the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, the penalty prescribed by Article 549 of the Penal Code, which ranges from cadena temporal to life imprisonment, must be imposed in its maximum degree. Therefore, the penalty of life imprisonment was deemed appropriate.
Main Doctrine
The crime of arson is consummated once the fire has been started, regardless of the extent of the damage caused. The consummation does not depend on the damage, but on the act of setting fire to the structure.