Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5724)
Facts:
The United States v. Jesus Balmori and Cecilio Apostol, G.R. No. 5724, February 02, 1911, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was The United States and the defendants-appellants were Jesus Balmori and Cecilio Apostol; the case arose from a criminal information charging the defendants with maliciously and criminally setting fire to personal property in a room occupied by others (incendiarism under the Penal Code).At the Court of First Instance of Manila (Hon. Charles S. Lobingier presiding), the accused were tried, found guilty under article 557 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment, ordered to indemnify the injured party for the value of the damaged property, and to pay costs. The trial court’s written opinion recited that on July 6 the two accused, after drinking, visited a house of prostitution in Sampaloc, occupied separate rooms with women inmates, later entered the room of Agapita Rivera, where Balmori allegedly struck a match to a bundle of skirts and handed it to Apostol who applied it to bed-trimmings; both then ran down the stairs. Witnesses Pilar Fajardo and Petra Angeles corroborated pursuit and flight; a policeman found bedding, apparel and the bed partially burned.
The trial court received Rivera’s testimony as part of the res gestae and accepted her identification, found intoxication to be an extenuating circumstance (Penal Code art. 9(6)), found that the offense occurred in the dwelling of the aggrieved party (aggravating circumstance under art. 10(20)), applied article 81(4) to counterbalance circumstances, and fixed the penalty in the medium degree. The prosecution’s itemized list valued the damaged goods at 101 pesos (equivalent to 252 pesetas as assessed), and the court accepted the owner’s testimony as proof of value without expert evidence.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 5724). The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and briefs, affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence: it held the evidence did not warrant the aggravating circumstance of morada and reduced the penalty to the minimum degree — sentencing each ac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendants for malicious and criminal incendiarism?
- Did the circumstances warrant treating the offense as committed in the dwelling (morada) as an aggravating circumstance, and was the penalty...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)