G.R. No. 31770 , December 5, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. ANTONINO HERNANDEZ

FACTS

On February 3, 1929, Miguel Dayrit and his children were inside their house in Mabalacat, Pampanga. Past midnight, Dayrit noticed the thatched roof was on fire. Looking out the window, he saw the appellant, Antonino Hernandez, standing beside the house holding a stick. Dayrit shouted for help and managed to extinguish the fire after a portion of the roof was burned. Two witnesses, Artemio Tanglao and Daniel Mallari, corroborated Dayrit’s account, with Tanglao seeing Hernandez flee and Mallari meeting him on the way. The stick found at the scene had a burnt end and a rag soaked with petroleum. Mallari identified it as a stick Hernandez used for picking guava. Prior to the incident, Dayrit suspected Hernandez of stealing his paddy and reported it to the barrio lieutenant. Hernandez reacted violently, threatening them with a bolo. The trial court convicted Hernandez of frustrated arson.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed is frustrated or consummated arson.

RULING

The crime is consummated arson. The Supreme Court held that once the fire has been started and the house is partially burned, the crime of arson is consummated. The extent of the damage is immaterial. The Court cited precedents (United States vs. Go Foo Suy and United States vs. Po Chengco) establishing that arson is consummated upon the setting of the fire and the fact of burning, regardless of whether the fire is later extinguished.

Applying Article 549 of the Penal Code (arson of a dwelling with knowledge of occupants), the penalty is cadena temporal to life imprisonment. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime, sought to ensure the crime’s commission, was present, warranting the penalty’s maximum degree. The Court modified the trial court’s judgment, sentencing Hernandez to life imprisonment. Considering the appellant’s advanced age (about 85) and the minimal damage, the Court, accepting the Attorney-General’s recommendation, ordered that a copy of the decision be forwarded to the Governor-General for possible executive clemency.