Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > April 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2158 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN BUDIAO, ET AL.

004 Phil 502:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2158. April 29, 1905. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. JULIAN BUDIAO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Ledesma, Sumulong & Quintos, for Appellants.

Felipe G. Calderon, for Private Prosecutor.

Solicitor-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ARSON. — The fact that the defendant ordered his plantation set on fire, and while it was burning the adjoining plantation caught fire from it and was burned, there being no proof that in giving that order he had any malicious intention of setting the latter plantation on fire, does not warrant a charge against him for the crime of arson.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The crime charged against the defendants here is arson. The complaint states "that on the evening of April 21, 1904, the defendant Julian Budiao, by order of his codefendant, Bernabe Rojas, set fire to a sugar plantation situated in Sugud, barrio of Calitan, municipality of Panay, Province of Capiz, belonging to Pascual Barza, and causing the latter damages to the value of 800 pesos." The court below found the two defendants guilty and sentenced them to the penalty of three years six months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, to jointly and severally indemnify the injured party, Pascual Barza, in the sum of P222, Philippine currencyc as damages, and to pay the costs of the suit. From this judgment only Bernabe Rojas appealed.

The proof of the liability of this defendant exists principally and almost exclusively in the testimony of his codefendant, Budiao. The latter testified at the trial that the plantations of sugar cane belonging to Pascual Barza were burned because, having set fire to the plantation of his master, Rojas, by order of the latter, with the object of cleanning it, the fire was transmitted to the injured party’s plantation, for the reason that Barza and his workmen pursued him and he was obliged to abandon the burning plantation, fleeing from his pursuers. On being asked if Bernabe Rojas told him to burn the plantation of Pascual Barza he answered as follows: "No, sir; he did not tell me anything; he only told me to set his own plantation of sugar cane on fire." This same statement was substantially that made by Julian Budiao to the municipal president, who was a witness for the prosecution immediately after he was captured after the occurrence. "I asked him," the president says, "why he had done that, and he answered me that he had set fire to the plantation of Bernabe Rojas, of Sugud, and for that reason the plantation of Pascual Barza was also burned. He told me, "the president adds, "that Bernabe Rojas told him to set his own plantation on fire, but that the fire was communicated to the plantation of Barza." In the same or like terms Budiao expressed himself to the sergeant of police, who is also a witness for the prosecution. This witness testifies that after Budiao was turned over to him as a detention prisoner he asked him why he had been arrested and he answered because he had set fire to some sugar cane by order of his master and that the fire was communicated to the plantation of Barza. The injured party, Pascual Barza, says that, having asked Julian Budiao if he really was the author of the fire, he replied, "Yes," but that he had done so by order of his master, Bernabe Rojas. The question, as may be seen, did not refer specifically to the fire on the plantation of Barza, but referred in general terms to the fire occuring on the evening of the occurrence in which not only the plantation of Barza was burned but also that of Rojas. This being so, the answer of Budiao could very well refer to the fire on the plantation of Rojas, and not to that of Barza. At least, there is no reason why the latter should be precisely understood as referring to the fire on the plantation of Barza, and, this being so, evidently no concrete charge against Rojas can be substantiated from his answer. The same thing may be said as to the statements of Budiao to the witness for the prosecution Simeon Bucbuc. This witness was a laborer on the plantations of Barza and relates the occurrence in the following manner; "We three being working — Doroteo, Ignacio, and myself — on that occasion, when we turned our faces we saw that the fire was in the property of Pascual Barza, and we then went to the place of the occurrence and saw Budiao was setting fire to the cane which was not yet burning. We then asked him why he set the sugar cane on fire and he answered me that he was doing so by orders which he received from his master, Bernabe Rojas."cralaw virtua1aw library

The witness does not say specifically to what cane he referred on questioning Budiao although it is probable that in his declaration he might have referred to the cane of Barza and not to that of Rojas, yet so far it does not appear established as certain and indubitable. Furthermore, the statements of this witness contain so many inconsistencies that he is placed in open contradiction with the rest of the witnesses for the prosecution. After his statement above quoted he adds the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When we arrived in the presence of Barza we presented to him the individual who set his sugar cane afire, and, once there, Pascual Barza asked Budio why he had set his sugar cane afire, and he answered him that he had done so because his master, Bernabe Rojas, had told him to do so."cralaw virtua1aw library

And then he adds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The municipal president asked Budiao what crime he had committed, and he answered him that he had set Barza’s sugar cane afire because his master, Bernabe Rojas, had told him to do so."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have already seen that the testimony of Barza and that of the municipal president is completely different from this. What Barza asked Budiao was whether he had been the author of the fire, and what Budiao answered to the municipal president, according to the latter, was that "Rojas told him to set his cane afire, but that the fire caught also in Barza’s plantation."cralaw virtua1aw library

Examining carefully the several statements made by the defendant Julian Budiao, we arrive at the conclusion that what he has said and what he has always meant at all times, both at the trial as well as outside, has been that Bernabe Rojas ordered him to set his own sugar cane afire, but not that of Pascual Barza. That such was really the order given by Rojas to Budiao is expressly affirmed by a witness for the defense, whose testimony has not been contradicted by any of the witnesses for the prosecution. There is, then, in the statements made at the trial and in those made outside of the court room by Julian Budiao, nothing to incriminate Bernabe Rojas. If the order which the latter gave the former was only to set his own cane on fire, and there being an absence of proof that in giving that order he had any malicious intention of setting Pascual Barza’s plantation on fire by means of the fire on his own plantation, although in fact the fire caught the former’s by the negligence or carelessness of Budiao or for any other motive, we can not charge him with any criminal liability for that occurrence, without prejuice to the civil liability which he might have incurred from the act of his employee. That liability in any event must be the object of another suit in the proper manner and form. The statement made by Rojas himself and the witness for the prosecution about the fact that he had some resentment against Barza for having required from him an exorbitant indemnity for a carabao, and that he had a suit pending against the said Barza (referring, perhaps, to the present suit), and that if he lost it Barza "would have to expect something from him," does not prove the liability of defendant for the crime charged to him. The fact that he was somewhat estranged from Barza does not mean that he hated him or had any rancor against him, as urged in the argument of the prosecution, and even were it so, it could not be concluded necessarily from this that he had committed the crime with which he is charged.

Therefore we reverse the judgment appealed from as regards the sentence imposed on Bernabe Rojas, whom we freely acquit, reserving to Pascual Barza the action for damages which he may have against said Rojas, which action may be pursued by him in the civil suit, declaring the costs in both instances de oficio as regards the defendant Bernabe Rojas. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.




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






April-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1375 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIFICO GONZAGA

    004 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 1703 April 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO CAPADUCIA

    004 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 1760 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. IRINEO BIBAL

    004 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 1988 April 3, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO CAPARAS

    004 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 1530 April 4, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VENANCIO SANTOS

    004 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 1683 April 5, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO VIZQUERA

    004 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 1487 April 6, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ISMAEL TAN-SECO

    004 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 1504 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERT L. HIGHFILL

    004 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 1540 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR RAMOS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 1537 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GERONIMO MILLA

    004 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 1862 April 8, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DAGALEA

    004 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 1647 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUSTO OCAMPO

    004 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 1897 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO AQUINO

    004 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 1953 April 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO FUENTES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 1588 April 12, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO SAN PEDRO

    004 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 1939 April 13, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MACALINAO

    004 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 1714 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN LOGARIO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 1899 April 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO MAGSAMBOL

    004 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 2092 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ ET AL.

    004 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 2200 April 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PANTALEON CANTIL

    004 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 1557 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AMADO SANTOS

    004 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 1943 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO SANTA ANA

    004 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 2134 April 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CAGAYAN ET AL.

    004 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 1486 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO RACINES, ET AL.

    004 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 1727 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 2170 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CADAY

    004 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 2176 April 18, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO FULGUERAS

    004 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 1661 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO VILLAROSA

    004 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 1755 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 1773 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 2000 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LIM TICO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 2198 April 19, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. SILVERIO NUÑEZ

    004 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 1800 April 24, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FERMIN GREGORIO

    004 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 1871 April 24, 1905 - UNTIED STATES v. FLORENTINO RALLOS

    004 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 1881 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUSEBIO DE LA SERNA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 1925 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CANETA

    004 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 2029 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    004 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 2032 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NUBLA

    004 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 2052 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES vs LICAS

    004 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 2062 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. AGUSTINA BARRERA

    004 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 2139 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRICO ILAO

    004 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 2245 April 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO JAVATE

    004 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 1910 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN GUSTILO

    004 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 1930 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARGARITO ACABAL, ET AL.

    004 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 2118 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO VALDEHUEZA

    004 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 2231 April 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAYNAGA

    004 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 2374 April 26, 1905 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 1181 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE

    004 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 1612 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GRAY

    004 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 1707 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN QUILATAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 1932 April 27, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    004 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 1650 April 28, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. LINO LITONJUA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 1090 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO GONZALEZ

    004 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 1633 April 29, 1905 - NICOLAS CEPILLO CRUZ v. CHINAMAN CO-CUACO

    004 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 1766 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ANGEL MICHELENA

    004 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 1877 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO GUTIERREZ

    004 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 1934 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LEON, ET AL.

    004 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 1981 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANSELMO DIRIS, ET AL.

    004 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 1984 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    004 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 1998 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO REDION

    004 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2057 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO CONCEPCION

    004 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 2158 April 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN BUDIAO, ET AL.

    004 Phil 502