Case Digest (G.R. No. 13498)
Facts:
United States v. Agustin Castor, Isidoro Palomado and Juan Palma, G.R. No. 13498. September 30, 1918, the Supreme Court, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court.
The United States, as plaintiff-appellee, prosecuted Agustin Castor, Isidoro Palomado and Juan Palma (defendants-appellants) for the malicious burning of the dwelling of Concepcion Castellana. The facts, as found by the trial court and not controverted before this Court, were that on the night of April 14, 1917 the three defendants, armed and bearing torches, approached the house where Engracio de la Cruz and members of his household were lodged. After demands to open the door were met with silence, one defendant (Castor) allegedly ordered that if the inmates did not surrender the house should be set on fire; Palomado and Palma then set the house aflame. The house and its contents, including fifty-five cavanes of palay, were destroyed; the lives of the inmates were, however, saved.
At trial the defendants were convicted and the trial court imposed a sentence of six years (the record indicates a sentence below the maximum). Castor moved for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence but did not support the motion with affidavits. The Government appealed the insufficientness of the sentence (or the record was brought before the Supreme Court seeking appropriate review).
On appeal to the Supreme Court (mode of review implicit in the record), the Court found that the facts fell squarely within Article 549 of the Penal Code (arson against inhabited dwelling) and that an aggravating circumstance attended the offense. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, imposed the maximum penalty of cadena perpetua (life imprisonment) on each defendant, ordered accessory penalties and indemnity of P40 to Conc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Castor’s motion for a new trial properly denied for lack of supporting affidavits and absence of newly discovered material evidence?
- Do the proven facts constitute arson under Article 549 of the Penal Code?
- Did the circumstance of nocturnity as proven justify imposing the penalty in its maximum degree (cadena perpetua...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)