Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

011 Phil 60:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 3831. August 6, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CANUTO BUTARDO and VALENTIN BUTARDO, Defendants-Appellants.

Pedro Concepcion for Appellants.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ARSON. — In the crime of arson, the enormity of the offense is not measured by the value of the property that may be destroyed but rather by the human lives exposed to destruction. (U. S. v. Zabala, 6 Phil. Rep., 431.)


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


The accused, claiming ownership of a lot in Paoay, Ilocos Norte, adversely to their uncle, Antonio Butardo whose children Juana and Laureano were living there came to the house on the property on the 9th of February, 1906, at 8 o’clock, and demanded possession thereof, affixing to the door a notice to vacate. Possession being refused by the occupants, they went away, but an hour later returned, and while Juana and Laureano were within the house, they set fire to the roof, on the eastern side, near the window. While the house was burning, two neighbors Juan Exebeo and Apolonio Hurtado, who were attempting to put out the fire, were compelled to desist by the threats of the accused. The house and the chattels therein were destroyed but the occupants escaped.

Applying article 549 of the code, the judge of the Court of First Instance imposed a sentence of sixteen years and one day of cadena temporal.

The defense consisted of an alibi, testified to by some relatives of the accused, the difficulty of establishing it being increased by an attempt to show also that the fire took place on the 9th of March instead of the 9th of February, with the result that an alibi was sworn to covering both of these dates. On the facts in evidence there is no doubt of the guilt of the accused, but their counsel makes a strong plea in their behalf on the ground that the punishment imposed is ,disproportionate to the offense, which was the destruction of a nipa house of trifling value. It has been further urged that the act was not one showing a depraved and reckless disregard of human life, such as is contemplated in the statute against arson, but was simply one of private revenge and a natural means taken by these ignorant men of asserting what they considered their civil rights.

It does not appear from the evidence that the accused set fire to the house in the presence of the inhabitants or with their knowledge, or had any reason to suppose that the persons therein were on their guard or were expecting such an occurrence. On the contrary, if any inference on this subject from the proofs is allowable, it is that, having left the house and returned to it again after nightfall, their design was to start the fire secretly and as a surprise. It does not lessen the enormity of their offense, that the people whom they thus exposed to danger were their own relatives, nor serve as a palliation that they harbored ill feeling against them. The argument of counsel misconceives the object of the law, the severity of which is measured, not by the value of the property that may be destroyed, but rather by the human lives exposed to destruction by the crime of arson in an inhabited house. The limit of strict construction of article 549 of the Penal Code was reached in United States v. Zabala 16 Phil. Rep., 431), where this court refused to apply it to the act of a man who had set fire to his own house while his son was therein in his company.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with one-half of the costs of this instance against each of the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Willard, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


CARSON, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur with the opinion of the majority, but I deem it not improper to reduce to writing my belief that while the accused are undoubtedly technically guilty of the offense of which they are convicted, nevertheless, the penalty, which under the law must be imposed in this case, is excessive in the extreme. The authors of the Spanish Code, in imposing penalties of exceptional severity in certain cases of arson, clearly had in mind:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. The extreme danger to which human lives may he exposed by the malicious burning of dwelling houses and the like;

Second. The danger to property resulting from widespread conflagrations;

Third. The fact that it is extremely difficult to adopt precautions against the commission of the crime, and to discover the perpetrators after its commission.

Formerly, where these elements marked the commission of the crime, the single penalty prescribed by law was that of death, but this severity was finally relaxed, and while exceptionally severe penalties are still imposed in such cases, the authors of the Penal Code appear to have endeavored to graduate these penalties in accordance with the degree of danger to life and property, resulting from the commission of the crime.

To this end the severest penalties are prescribed for the malicious burning of edifices in which large numbers of persons are assembled. less harsh, but still very severe penalties are imposed on those setting fire to dwelling houses and other buildings more or less permanently occupied. Less severe penalties on those guilty of firing unoccupied dwellings, the penalty being more or less severe as the house appeared to be situated so as to make a widespread conflagration more or less probable. And finally, sufficient, but not notably harsh penalties are prescribed in cases where the property of others is set on fire under conditions which do not suggest especial danger to human life or the likelihood of considerable destruction of property.

The accused are undoubtedly guilty of setting fire to an occupied dwelling house, and are therefore guilty of the crime of arson, as technically defined in article 549 of the Penal Code. Yet I think that the record clearly discloses that all of the above set out elements, which induced the legislators to impose the exceptionally severe penalty prescribed in that article, are wanting in this case.

First. I find no indication of that reckless disregard for human life, indicative of a wicked and perverse heart which is so justly chastised by the Spanish legislator with extraordinary penalties. The action of the accused appears to have been the result of a quarrel among relatives, as to the ownership of a small shack, worth perhaps P100, if we accept the extreme estimate of the complaining witness. The accused had oftimes, verbally and in writing, demanded possession of the shack which they claimed as their own. There seems to be no question that they are the owners of the ground on which it is located, but their cousins, a man and a woman of some 33 and 36 years respectively, claiming ownership of the shack, declined to vacate. The accused finally went to the house and enraged by the stubborn persistence of the occupants, set fire to it. I think the testimony of the occupants, clearly indicates that, when the accused put the torch to the roof of the shack, they were watching the whole proceeding and disputing the right of the accused to dislodge them. Certain it is that the accused openly continued by the house after it was set on fire, and resisted the efforts of two of the neighbors, who came up to help to put out the fire, and forbade these persons to give any assistance. in extinguishing the flames. The brother and sister who were within, when the accused set fire to the house, and watching them while they did so, were never in the slightest danger of their lives, and I am convinced that the accused never had any reason to believe that there was any danger to human life as a result of their unlawful act, and that in fact there was not.

Second. Nor do I find any indication in this case of that reckless disregard of the property rights of others, which the Spanish Code justly penalizes with extreme rigor. The penalty prescribed where one maliciously sets fire to an unoccupied building is much more severe where the crime is committed in a town or city or in the neighborhood of other buildings, than it is where the house stands separate and apart. In this case, the little shack burned by the accused, was claimed by them to be their own property, and was so far removed from the nearest neighbors’ house, as practically to eliminate all danger in that direction.

Third. The conduct of the accused, who set fire to the shack under the very eyes of its occupants, and then continued by the fire when the neighbors assembled, resisting their efforts to extinguish the flames, wholly removes the commission of this particular offense from that class of cases (of which arson is in general a striking example), wherein the penalty prescribed is made exceptionally severe, because of the difficulties encountered in the discovery of the perpetrators as a result of the secret and surreptitious manner in which they are committed.

I have thought it worth while to make these observations because this appears to be a case where executive clemency might well be invoked, not to pardon the accused and wholly relieve them of punishment for the crime which they undoubtedly committed, but to reduce the penalty in such degree as may be in consonance with the degree of criminality actually involved in their offense.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3837 August 1, 1908 - BENIGNO CATABIAN v. FRANCISCO TUNGCUL

    011 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4537 August 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO POBRE

    011 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4381 August 4, 1908 - MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 4498 August 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LEOCADIO SALGADO

    011 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 4519 August 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO IDON

    011 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 3897 August 10, 1908 - ZACARIAS OMO v. INSULAR GOV’T.

    011 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

    011 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 4027 August 12, 1908 - JOSEFA GARCIA PASCUAL v. LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI

    011 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

    011 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4032 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO F. CONCEPCION

    011 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 4141 August 15, 1908 - AGUSTINA FAELNAR, ET AL. v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    011 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 4330 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FENIX

    011 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

    011 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4464 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE IDOS

    011 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908 - POTENCIANA TABIGUE v. FRANK E. GREEN

    011 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO

    011 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 4317 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MONTECILLO

    011 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3818 August 19, 1908 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4223 August 19, 1908 - NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. v. HIGINO MENESES

    011 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 4382 August 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4468 August 21, 1908 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. C. A. SMITH

    011 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908 - ANGEL JAVELLANA v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

    011 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 4390 August 24, 1908 - ANG TOA v. BASILIA ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 4365 August 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO ESTABILLO

    011 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 4384 August 27, 1908 - SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL. v. MAGNO ABINEZ

    011 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 4477 August 27, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD v. BRIGIDA

    011 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4529 August 27, 1908 - LUISA TENGCO v. VICENTE SANZ

    011 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4513 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON CABONCE

    011 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 4642 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIDNEY LEE BAYLEES

    011 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 4383 August 31, 1908 - ZACARIAS BAGSA v. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA

    011 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 4385 August 31, 1908 - WALTER E. OLSEN v. BERT YEARSLEY

    011 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 4411 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DELOSO

    011 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 4689 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GO TIAO

    011 Phil 183