The United States vs. Catalino Apostol

Criminal intent is presumed under article 1 of the Penal Code, and the burning of an occupied hut in an uninhabited place falls under article 549, not article 554, because article 554 applies only when the building is unoccupied at the time of the fire.

The prosecution was brought by the United States against Catalino Apostol under the Penal Code. The case required construction of the Penal Code’s arson provisions, particularly article 549, which punishes setting fire to an edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port with knowledge that persons are within it, and article 554, in relation to article 553, which addresses a building intended for habitation in an uninhabited place. The decision also invoked article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, which allows a court to address excessive penalties in view of the degree of malice and injury.

On December 16, 1907, five individuals, one of them Catalino Apostol, went to a hut where Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul were living. The visitors inquired about carabaos that had disappeared. When the three occupants answered that they knew nothing about the matter, the group ordered them to leave the hut. The three men refused to do so. Catalino Apostol then set fire to the hut, and it burned down.

Pedro Tabilisima testified that he and his companions were inside the hut when the accused and his companions arrived at 8 p.m. and questioned them about carabaos they said had been stolen from them. After the occupants replied that they knew nothing, the former set fire to the house and the occupants jumped out. He testified that he and two companions lived in the house; that it was situated in an uninhabited place, surrounded by fields; that the nearest houses were far away and cries could not be heard from one house to another; and that the burnt house was worth not more than P1 because it was small and he himself had constructed it.

Celestino Vergara testified that several individuals arrived at 8 o’clock at night, asked for carabaos they claimed to have lost, wounded Tranquilino Manipul, who was asleep, and Pedro Tabilisima, forced them to leave the house, and, because they did not want to leave for fear of being assaulted, the accused set fire to it. They tried to put out the fire as long as they could, but when no longer able, jumped out of the house. The house was in an uninhabited locality, in the fields, the nearest house being a small store to which the cry of a person might carry, and the neighboring houses could be seen. Tranquilino Manipul testified in almost the same terms as Celestino Vergara.

The trial court found the responsibility of the accused fully established by the testimony of the injured parties. It also found that the hut was situated in an uninhabited place, surrounded by fields, with the nearest houses far away, and that the burnt house was not worth more than P1.

• Criminal Intent: Appellant argued that there was an absence of proof of criminal intent.
• Applicable Penal Provision: Appellant maintained that because the burnt hut was situated in an uninhabited place, article 554, not article 549, of the Penal Code should apply.

• Criminal Intent: Whether the absence of proof of criminal intent precludes conviction when the accused executed an act punished by law.
• Applicable Penal Provision: Whether the burning of a hut occupied by persons but situated in an uninhabited place falls under article 549 or article 554 of the Penal Code.
• Mitigation of Penalty: Whether the court may invoke article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code in view of the extreme severity of the penalty under article 549, considering the degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime.

• Criminal Intent: No. Criminal intent is presumed under article 1 of the Penal Code on the part of the person who executes an act the law punishes, unless the contrary appears.
• Applicable Penal Provision: Article 549 applies, not article 554. Article 554, in connection with article 553, refers to an edifice intended for human habitation in an uninhabited place at a time when it is unoccupied; here, persons were within the hut when it was burned.
• Mitigation of Penalty: Yes. The court recognized the extreme severity of the penalty and applied the remedy under article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, but affirmed the judgment and requested the Governor-General to reduce or mitigate the penalty.

• Criminal Intent: Article 1 of the Penal Code provides that criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary appears. The accused set fire to the hut after its occupants refused to leave. No contrary evidence appeared to rebut the presumption. Thus, the absence of proof of criminal intent did not exonerate him.
• Applicable Penal Provision: The defense invoked article 554, which, in connection with article 553, punishes setting fire to a building intended for habitation in an uninhabited place. That provision did not apply because it refers to an edifice intended for human habitation in an uninhabited place at a time when the same is unoccupied. The testimonies of Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul established that the three men were inside the hut when the accused and his companions arrived, that they were ordered to leave, and that the accused set fire to it when they refused. Article 549 punishes with cadena temporal to cadena perpetua those who set fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge that one or more persons were within the same. Because the accused knew the occupants were inside, article 549 governed.
• Mitigation of Penalty: In view of the nature of the crime and the circumstances attending it, the court recognized the extreme severity of the penalty. It applied the remedy afforded by article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, which applies when a strict application of the code would result in an excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime. The judgment was nevertheless affirmed, and the clerk was directed to communicate the result and sentence to the Governor-General, requesting him, if he so desired, to use his prerogative to reduce or mitigate the penalty imposed.

• Presumption of Criminal Intent — Under article 1 of the Penal Code, criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary appears. The Court applied this presumption because the accused set fire to the hut and no contrary evidence rebutted the presumption.
• Arson Under Article 549 vs. Article 554 — Article 549 punishes setting fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge that one or more persons were within the same. Article 554, in connection with article 553, concerns a building intended for habitation in an uninhabited place at a time when it is unoccupied. The presence of occupants at the time of the burning removes the case from article 554 and places it under article 549.
• Article 2, Paragraph 2, Penal Code — Mitigation for Excessive Penalty — When strict application of the Penal Code would result in an excessive penalty, considering the degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime, the court may apply the remedy afforded by article 2, paragraph 2. The Court recognized the severity of the penalty and requested the Governor-General to reduce or mitigate it.

• "Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear." — This states the presumption of criminal intent under article 1 of the Penal Code, which the Court used to reject the defense’s claim of absence of proof of criminal intent.
• "It is article 549, which punishes with the very severe penalties of cadena temporal to cadena perpetua \"those who shall set fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge that one or more persons were within the same,\" that must be applied." — This is the ratio decidendi on the applicable penal provision, holding that article 549 governs because the accused knew persons were inside the hut.
• "The argument which the defense advances, based on article 554, which in connection with 553 punishes the setting fire to a building intended for habitation, in an uninhabited place, does not apply, because the article question refers to an edifice intended for human habitation in an uninhabited place at a time when the same is unoccupied." — This distinguishes article 554 from article 549 and explains why the hut’s location in an uninhabited place did not bring the case under article 554.
• "But the court, in view of the nature of the crime and considering the circumstances attending the same, recognizes the extreme severity of the penalty; therefore we apply the remedy afforded it by article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, when a strict application of the provisions of the code would result in an excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime." — This states the Court’s basis for recognizing the penalty’s severity and for requesting possible reduction or mitigation by the Governor-General.

• Article 1, Penal Code — Provides that criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary appears. Applied to reject the defense’s argument that criminal intent was not proved.
• Article 549, Penal Code — Punishes with cadena temporal to cadena perpetua those who set fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge that one or more persons were within the same. Applied because the accused set fire to a hut while its occupants were inside.
• Article 554, Penal Code — In connection with article 553, punishes setting fire to a building intended for habitation in an uninhabited place. Held not applicable because it refers to an edifice intended for human habitation in an uninhabited place at a time when it is unoccupied.
• Article 553, Penal Code — Referenced in connection with article 554 on setting fire to a building intended for habitation in an uninhabited place. Not applied to the case.
• Article 2, Paragraph 2, Penal Code — Provides the remedy when a strict application of the code would result in an excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime. Applied to recognize the severity of the penalty and to request the Governor-General to reduce or mitigate it.

• Torres, J.
• Johnson, J.
• Carson, J.
• Moreland, J.