Case Digest (G.R. No. 8217)
Facts:
The United States v. Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho, G.R. No. 8217. September 05, 1913. The Supreme Court (Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concurring), Trent, J., writing for the Court.
The United States (plaintiff-appellee) prosecuted several Chinese occupants of premises in Cebu for arson; Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho were defendants and appellants here (co-defendants Go Juat Chiong, Go Cho Jim, and Go Quip were also named; two were acquitted and one not apprehended). The Court of First Instance of Cebu convicted Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho of frustrated arson under article 549 of the Penal Code and sentenced each to eight years and one day of cadena temporal with accessory penalties and payment of one-fifth of the costs.
On the night of February 24, 1912, house No. 30 on Calle Norte America in Cebu was burning; later a separate fire broke out in neighboring house No. 26 (separated by a narrow passageway). No. 30’s first floor housed a Chinese carpenter; No. 26 contained a dry goods tienda (first floor), an office/trastienda connected by a door (with stairway to the upper living quarters), and a bodega separated from the trastienda by a bamboo partition. The appellants rented No. 26 and operated the dry goods business; the upstairs tenants included Antipas Paquipo and her husband.
Witnesses differed on timing and movements. Several testified No. 30 had been burning for some time before No. 26 caught fire and that the fire at No. 30 was nearly under control when No. 26 ignited. Inmates of No. 26 (including the appellants) generally testified they left early, went to a nearby plaza, and observed no fire in their house when they left. Other witnesses and policemen identified the appellants or other Chinamen at or near No. 26 after the trastienda had caught fire and described arrests made at the scene.
Three distinct fires were found in No. 26 nearly simultaneously: (1) in the bodega (burning rolls of sauale on the floor), (2) in the trastienda (bolts of cloth on impromptu shelves), and (3) in Antipas’s upstairs bed. Investigators found empty petroleum/kerosene bottles under the bed, three bottles under a table in the trastienda and one behind a door, and bottles and a broken matchbox in the bodega; a hole in the bamboo partition between bodega and trastienda was also observed and photographed. Appellate testimony and ocular inspection led the trial court and the Supreme Court to conclude the bodega and trastienda fires were incendiary, and the upstairs bed fire was probably incendiary as well.
The appellants carried an insurance policy of P25,000 on the stock; independent appraisers (accepted by the defendants) valued the stock between about P5,500 and P8,000, while the defendants’ books purported much larger values and alleged profits. The trial court found motive (insurance) plus incriminating circumstantial evidence sufficient for guilt.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court challenging sufficiency of evidence, the characterization o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction of Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho for arson supported by sufficient evidence and properly sustained by the appellate court?
- Did the trial court’s refusal to provide a Chinese interpreter to appellant Go Foo Suy (resulting in counsel declining his testimony) constitute reversible error?
- Was the classification of the offense under article 549 proper, or should the offense have been graded under article 561 or another provision of the Pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)