G.R. No. L-11241; July 26, 1960
VALENTIN ILO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Valentin Ilo and Silvestre Buela were charged with arson before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The trial court found them guilty under Article 321, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly. They appealed to the Court of Appeals, which also found them guilty but modified the penalty, holding the crime fell under Article 321, paragraph 1, instead. The petitioners then sought review by the Supreme Court.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals established that on December 4, 1950, petitioners, along with six companions, went to the house of Zosimo Taghoy in sitio Ligua. Silvestre Buela poured petroleum on the house’s awning, and Valentin Ilo set it on fire with a match. At the time, the house was occupied by Bruna Absin and Salud Piania (with her three young children), who managed to escape. The house and its contents, valued at over P1,000 (with the house itself worth P600), were burned to the ground. The motive appeared linked to a prior quarrel and Zosimo Taghoy’s testimony against Ilo in a related case.

ISSUE

What is the proper classification of the crime of arson committed by the petitioners, and what is the corresponding penalty, based on the allegations in the information and the evidence presented?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners could not be convicted under Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, as the information did not contain an essential allegation that the accused knew the house was occupied at the time of the burning. The Court cited People vs. Macalma, which held that such knowledge is an essential element of the crime under that paragraph and must be alleged in the information. The Court also held that the offense could not be classified under Article 321, paragraph 5, as the information did not allege the house was an inhabited dwelling located in an uninhabited place.
Consequently, the crime committed falls under Article 322, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which covers arson not included in the preceding article. Since the damage caused exceeded P200 but did not exceed P1,000, the penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The Court found the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present, with no mitigating circumstance to offset it, warranting the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period (2 years, 11 months, and 11 days to 4 years and 2 months). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court modified the penalty, sentencing each petitioner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.