Case Summary (G.R. No. 14128)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner/Appellee: The United States (prosecuting authority). Respondent/Appellant: Severino Valdes y Guilgan.
Key Dates
Date of the incident: Morning of April 28 (year of decision context). Decision date of the appellate court: December 10, 1918 (not included in the initial header per instruction).
Applicable Law
The court applied the Penal Code provisions: article 549 (offense of arson), article 3 paragraph 2, article 65 (classification and degrees of participation/penalty), and article 57 (accessory penalties). The court treated the facts under the rubric of frustrated arson of an inhabited house.
Factual Background
Between 8 and 9 a.m. on April 28, smoke was observed issuing from the lower floor of the Lewin family residence at No. 328, San Rafael Street, San Miguel. Mrs. Auckback alerted Mrs. Lewin. The servant Paulino Banal found a piece of jute sack and a rag, both soaked with kerosene and burning, placed between a post and an entresol partition. At the time, defendant Valdes was in the entresol cleaning; co-defendant Labarro was cleaning horses. Police were called and arrested the defendants that morning.
Arrest Statements and Confessions
At the police station, Valdes made a written statement (Exhibit C) admitting he had set the fire to the sack and rag and that he had started several prior fires in the house. He attributed his acts to inducement by co-prisoner Labarro, alleging resentment against their masters and a promise of payment (one peso) per fire. At trial Valdes admitted making police-station declarations but denied placing the sack and rag under the house, accusing Paulino instead. He also offered an inconsistent account that he had set fire to a pile of dry mango leaves, which contrasted with his police statement.
Evidence of Prior Attempts and Police Surveillance
Testimony showed repeated attempts to burn the house over about a month while Valdes served the Lewin family. Officer Antonio Garcia del Cid testified that, on a prior morning, he saw Valdes climbing the wall of a warehouse behind the dwelling (where straw had previously been burned) and that Valdes desisted when observed by the officer.
Trial Result as to Co-defendant
For lack of evidence and on counsel’s petition, proceedings against Hugo Labarro (alias Navarro) were dismissed. No proof substantiated Valdes’s allegation that servant Paulino placed the incendiary material.
Legal Classification and Reasoning
The court found the placement and ignition of a kerosene-soaked jute sack and rag beside an entresol partition of an inhabited house — while some inmates were inside — constituted attempted (frustrated) arson of an inhabited house. The act amounted to performance of all acts necessary to bring about consummation, but the intended burning of the building did not occur due to causes independent of the defendant’s will (the fire was extinguished before any part of the building began to burn). Therefore the offense could not be classified as consummated arson. The court concluded Valdes was the sole proven direct perpetrator, citing his police admission and prior involvement in other fires, despite his trial denials and unsupported exculpatory assertions.
Aggravating/Extenuating Circumstances
The court found no ex
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 14128)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 39 Phil. 240, G.R. No. 14128, decided December 10, 1918.
- Cause instituted by a complaint filed by the prosecuting attorney before the Court of First Instance of Manila (this city).
- Original judgment rendered May 20 (of the present year in the source) sentencing "Severino or Faustino Valdes y Guilgan" to six years and one day of presidio mayor and to pay one-half of the costs; defendant appealed from this judgment.
- Proceedings against co-defendant Hugo Labarro (alias Hugo Navarro y Bunadia, also referred to as Hugo Labarro y Bunaladi) were dismissed; elsewhere the record notes the case was dismissed with respect to Hugo Labarro for lack of evidence and on his counsel’s petition.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty; the Court ordered defendant to pay costs of both instances.
- The decision was authored by Justice Torres, with concurrence by Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Johnson, Araullo, Street, Malcolm, and Avancena.
Parties
- Plaintiff and Appellee: The United States.
- Defendant and Appellant: Severino Valdes y Guilgan (also referenced as Faustino Valdes y Guilgan in the record).
- Co-defendant (proceedings dismissed): Hugo Labarro y Bunaladi, alias Hugo Navarro y Bunadia (also referred to as the driver Hugo Labarro).
- Household in which the alleged crime occurred: the Lewin family (M. D. Lewin and Mrs. Lewin).
- Neighbors and witnesses mentioned: Mrs. Auckback, servant Paulino Banal (referred to as Paulino), policeman Antonio Garcia del Cid.
Facts — Chronology and Physical Events
- Between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning of April 28 (of the year referred to in the source), while M. D. Lewin was absent, Mrs. Auckback called Mrs. Lewin to report much smoke issuing from the lower floor of the Lewin house at No. 328, San Rafael Street, San Miguel.
- Prior to Mrs. Auckback’s call, Mrs. Lewin had not noticed the smoke; upon being alerted she ordered the servant Paulino Banal to look for the source of the fire.
- Paulino found, soaked with kerosene oil and placed between a post of the house and a partition of the entresol, a piece of jute sack and a rag which were burning.
- At the time the burning sack and rag were discovered, defendant Valdes was in the entresol engaged in cleaning; co-defendant Hugo Labarro was cleaning the horses kept at the place.
- There had been repeated attempts, for about a month, since Severino Valdes began to serve the Lewin family, to burn the Lewin house.
- On a morning prior to the commission of the crime, policeman Antonio Garcia del Cid testified that he saw Valdes climbing up the wall of the warehouse behind the dwelling, where straw that had previously been burned was stored; when Valdes noticed the policeman he desisted from climbing and entering the warehouse.
- Police were watching the building due to the repeated attempts to burn it and were called on the morning of the incident by telephone; they arrested the defendants that same morning.
Arrest, Statements, and Confessions
- After arrest, according to Exhibit C (a police station statement), Severino Valdes admitted before several policemen that he had set fire to the sack and rag found and that he had also started several other fires that had occurred in the house on previous days.
- In the police station statement, Valdes stated he had performed such acts through the inducement of his co-prisoner Hugo Labarro, asserting resentment or prior trouble with their masters and claiming that, as friends, Labarro promised him a peso for each fire he should start.
- In an affidavit, the defendant admitted having made declarations at the police station but denied having placed the rag and jute sack soaked with kerosene in the position where they were found; in that affidavit he stated that the servant Paulino had done so.
- At arraignment, Valdes allegedly stated that he had set fire to a pile of dry mango leaves that he had gathered together — a statement that contradicted his police-station admission that he had set the sack and rag under the house.
- The record reports that no proof was presented to substantiate the defendant’s accusation against the servant Paulino (who is described as apparently the sam