Case Digest (G.R. No. 14128)
Facts:
The United States v. Severino Valdes y Guilgan, G.R. No. 14128, December 10, 1918, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street, Malcolm, and Avancena, JJ., concurring). The criminal complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance charging Severino Valdes y Guilgan (defendant and appellant) and Hugo Labarro y Bunaladi, alias Hugo Navarro y Bunadia (co-defendant) with arson.Between 8 and 9 o’clock on the morning of April 28, while M. D. Lewin was absent from his residence at No. 328 San Rafael Street, San Miguel, a neighbor, Mrs. Auckback, alerted Mrs. Lewin to heavy smoke in the lower floor. The servant Paulino discovered a burning rag and a piece of a jute sack soaked with kerosene placed between a post and a partition of the entresol. At that time Valdes was in the entresol cleaning and Labarro was cleaning horses. Police were summoned by telephone and arrested the two men the same morning.
At the police station Valdes made a written statement (Exhibit C) admitting he had set the sack and rag afire and that he had started several prior fires in the house, alleging he acted at the instigation of his co-defendant and in expectation of payment. At trial Valdes executed an affidavit admitting he made the police declarations but denying he placed the kerosene-soaked items where found, blaming instead the servant Paulino; he also offered inconsistent statements about setting a pile of dry mango leaves afire. For lack of evidence, and on his counsel’s petition, proceedings against Labarro were dismissed by the trial court.
The trial court found that Valdes had placed and ignited the kerosene-soaked sack and rag in a manner that endangered the inhabited house and its occupants but that no part of the building had actually begun to burn; thus the offense was classified as frustrated arson of an inhabited house under Article 549 of the Penal Code in connection with Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 65. The trial court convicted Valdes and sentenced him to six years and one day of presidio mayor and to pay one-half of the costs; he appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence of the burning items, Valdes’s police confession and subsequent inconsistent statements, testimony of prior attempts to set fires (including a policeman’s observation of Valdes attempting to enter a warehouse where s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the evidence support the conviction of Severino Valdes y Guilgan for frustrated arson of an inhabited house?
- Was the penalty imposed by the trial court appropriate and what penalty should be imposed?
- Was the dismissal of proceedings against Hugo La...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)