0% found this document useful (0 votes)
344 views1 page

US vs. Severino Valdes - ARSON

The defendant Severino Valdes was found setting fire to a jute sack and rag that were placed beside a wooden post in the entresol (mezzanine floor) of a house, endangering the structure. He later admitted to setting other small fires in the house previously. The court ruled that this constituted the crime of frustrated arson of an inhabited dwelling under the penal code, even though the fire was extinguished before any part of the building caught fire. While the defendant denied the crime, the evidence conclusively proved his direct participation. The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to 8 years and 1 day of presidio mayor, the medium penalty for this offense.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
344 views1 page

US vs. Severino Valdes - ARSON

The defendant Severino Valdes was found setting fire to a jute sack and rag that were placed beside a wooden post in the entresol (mezzanine floor) of a house, endangering the structure. He later admitted to setting other small fires in the house previously. The court ruled that this constituted the crime of frustrated arson of an inhabited dwelling under the penal code, even though the fire was extinguished before any part of the building caught fire. While the defendant denied the crime, the evidence conclusively proved his direct participation. The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to 8 years and 1 day of presidio mayor, the medium penalty for this offense.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-14128 December 10, 1918

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.SEVERINO VALDES Y GUILGAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

The house of a certain Mrs. Lewis was seen to have smoke issuing from its lower floor. When she ordered Banal to
look for the source, it was found out that it came between a post of the house and a partition of the entresol, a piece of
a jute sack and a rag which were burning. At that moment the defendant Valdes was in the entresol, engaged in his
work of cleaning. He was later on arrested and made a statement that he had set the fire to the said rag and piece of
sack under the house due to the inducement of other prisoners and that he had started the several other fires which
had occurred in said house on previous days.

ISSUE: WON THE DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED THE CRIME OF FRUSTRATED ARSON?

RULING:

YES. The fact of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag, soaked with kerosene oil and placed beside an upright of the
house and a partition of the entresol of the building, thus endangering the burning of the latter, constitutes the crime of
frustrated arson of an inhabited house, on an occasion when some of its inmates were inside of it. This crime of
provided for and punished by article 549, in connection with articles 3, paragraph 2, and 65 of the Penal Code, and the
sole proven perpetrator of the same by direct participation is the defendant Severino Valdes, for, notwithstanding his
denial and unsubstantiated exculpations, the record discloses conclusive proof that it was he who committed the said
unlawful act, as it was also he who was guilty of having set the other fires that occurred in said house.

The crime is classified only as frustrated arson, inasmuch as the defendant performed all the acts conceive to the
burning of said house, but nevertheless., owing to causes independent of his will, the criminal act which he intended
was not produced. The offense committed cannot be classified as consummated arson by the burning of said inhabited
house, for the reason that no part of the building had yet commenced to burn, although, as the piece of sack and the
rag, soaked in kerosene oil, had been placed near partition of the entresol, the partition might have started to burn, had
the fire not been put out on time.

There is no extenuating or aggravating circumstance to be considered in a connection with the commission of the
crime, and therefore the penalty of presidio mayor  immediately inferior in degree to that specified in article 549 of the
Penal Code, should be imposed in its medium degree.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the modification however, that the
penalty imposed upon the defendant shall be given eight years and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory
penalties prescribed in article 57 of the Code. The defendant shall also pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

You might also like