Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > February 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18768 February 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIA L. TAMBA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18768. February 28, 1964.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARSENIA TAMBA Y LUQUIRO, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Onofre H. Francisco, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. ARSON WITH HOMICIDE; KNOWLEDGE THAT BUILDING WAS OCCUPIED MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. — Knowledge on the part of the accused that the building set fire to is occupied is an essential element of arson with homicide as defined in Article 321, par. 1, in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and the information must contain allegations of such knowledge; otherwise, the accused can only be convicted at most of arson under par. 2(b) of the said Article 321.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA, ANGELO, J.:


Arsenia Tamba y Luquiro was charged with arson with homicide before the Court of First Instance of Davao under an information stating that, with grave abuse of confidence, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, she burned the house owned and inhabited by one Carlos S. Gavila to the damage and prejudice of its owner in the total amount of P30,000.00, and as a result minor Regino Gavila III was burned to death.

Upon arraignment, the accused, with the assistance of her counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the court rendered decision finding her guilty as charged "under Art. 321, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 249, of the Revised Penal Code, and conformably with Article 48 of the same Code, hereby sentences her to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify Carlos S. Gavila in the amount of P30,000.00, and the heirs of Regino Gavila III in the amount of P3,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency because of the penalty imposed and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused now appeals from this decision raising the same question already raised by her counsel at the hearing held before the court a quo to the effect that it was error for said court to have found the accused guilty of homicide under Article 321, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 249, considering that the information does not expressly allege that the accused knew that the house was occupied at the time she set fire to the same.

We find merit in this contention, for this Court has already held that "Knowledge on the part of the accused that the building set fire to is occupied, is an essential element of the form of arson defined in Article 549 (new Article 321) of the Penal Code, and the information must contain allegations to the effect that the accused had such knowledge at the time of the commission of the crime in order to sustain a conviction under that article." 1 Here the information does not allege that the accused had knowledge that the building was occupied at the time she set fire to it, and considering that a plea of guilty admits only what is alleged in the information, the accused can only be found guilty of what is actually alleged therein which at most constitutes the crime of arson described in Article 321, paragraph 2, subsection (b), of the Revised Penal Code, dealing with the burning of an inhabited building, the offender not knowing whether or not such building was occupied at the time of the commission of the crime.

Arson under this provision is punishable with reclusión temporal, in the same manner as homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying Article 48 of the same Code, reclusión temporal should be applied in its maximum period, or from 17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years. There being present the aggravating circumstance of nighttime which is offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, said penalty should be imposed in its medium period, or from 18 years 2 months and 21 days to 19 years 1 month and 10 days reclusión temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, we hereby sentence the accused to suffer a penalty the minimum of which should be not less than 12 years of prisión mayor and the maximum not more than 19 years 1 month and 10 days of reclusión temporal.

Modified as above indicated, we hereby affirm the decision appealed from in all other respects, with costs de oficio.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Macalma, 44 Phil., 170; Valentin Ilo, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-11241, July 26, 1960.




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






February-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19567 February 5, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLEDAD NERY

  • G.R. No. L-19771 February 27, 1964 - TEOFILO C. RODRIGUEZ v. DBP

  • G.R. No. L-14908 February 28, 1964 - SINFORIANO V. URGELIO, ET AL v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15946 February 28, 1964 - PROVINCE OF BULACAN v. B. E. SAN DIEGO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16574 February 28, 1964 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL v. RAYMOND TOMASSI, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17185 February 28, 1964 - GSIS v. GSIS EMPLOYEES’ ASSO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17647 February 28, 1964 - HERMINIA GODUCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18035 February 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELINO C. SIMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18344 February 28, 1964 - IN RE: TAN TEN KOC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18550 February 28, 1964 - IN RE: ALBERT ONG LING CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18768 February 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIA L. TAMBA

  • G.R. No. L-18792 February 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO BELLO

  • G.R. No. L-19325 February 28, 1964 - ISABEL, Q. JUECO v. FELICIDAD FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-19448 February 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ARGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19618 February 28, 1964 - LEONARDO SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. ANGEL H. MOJICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19635 February 28, 1964 - TOMAS Q. SORIANO v. TEOFILO ABETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20368 February 28, 1964 - CRISPIN BONGCAWIL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LANAO DEL, NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21776 February 28, 1964 - NICANOR G. JORGE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-22451 February 28, 1964 - GILBERT SEMON, ET AL. v. HON. PIO R. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. L-15547 February 29, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH ARCACHE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15644 February 29, 1964 - MAXIMO L. GALVEZ, ET AL v. MARIANO SEVERO TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15746 February 29, 1964 - SALVADOR A. CABALUNA, JR., v. HEIRS OF ALEJANDRA CORDOVA

  • G.R. No. L-15816 February 29, 1964 - EDUARDO E. PASCUAL v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15890 February 29, 1964 - VICENTE SALAZAR v. HON. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-15891 February 29, 1964 - ANGEL FUNIESTAS v. SEVERO ARCE

  • G.R. No. L-16082 February 29, 1964 - BENIGNO MALINAO v. LUZON SURETY CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16340 February 29, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HEALD LUMBER CO.

  • G.R. No. L-16440 February 29,1964

    PHIL. ENGINEERS’ SYNDICATE, INC. v. HON. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18103 February 29, 1964 - OSCAR LAGMAN, ET AL v. INVESTMENT PLANNING CORP. OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18508 February 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-18976 February 29, 1964 - DAMASO PEÑARA, ET AL v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18899 February 29, 1964 - OWNERS OF 51 OF THE JACKPOT SLOT MACHINES v. DIRECTOR OF THE NBI

  • G.R. No. L-19096 February 29, 1964 - CARLOS B. SIY v. TAN GUN GA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19101 February 29, 1964 - EMILIANO DALANDAN, ET AL. v. VICTORIA JULIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19140 February 29, 1964 - NG HUA TO, ET AL v. EMILIO GALANG, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-19152 February 29, 1964 - TAN TIONG TICK v. PHILIP MANUFACTURING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-19164 February 29, 1964 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19242 February 29, 1964 - SIGBE LASUD, ET AL v. SANTAY LASUD, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19243 February 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA T. MARIANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 February 29, 1964 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19553 February 29, 1964 - JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. IGNACIO SANTOS DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19981 February 29, 1964 - GODOFREDO QUIMSING v. EDUARDO TAJANGLANGIT

  • G.R. No. L-20239 February 29, 1964 - DEPORTATION BOARD, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22246 February 29, 1964 - VIRGINIO A. ASTILLA v. HON. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL