GR L 105; (October, 1901) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-105 : October 16, 1901
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ALEGADO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On the night of May 21, 1900, several people, including the defendant Antonio Alegado, were gathered at the house of Catalino Biado on the outskirts of Paoay, where Biado’s deceased father was lying in state. Alegado’s bolo went missing inside the house. After a search failed to locate it, Alegado threatened to burn the house down unless the bolo was found. When the bolo was still not found, Alegado used a piece of burning bamboo to set fire to the house. The fire consumed the house and a nearby granary containing rice. The occupants discovered the fire shortly after it started but could not extinguish it. The total damage was estimated at 105 pesos and 75 centavos. At trial, even the witnesses presented by the accused to establish an alibi testified that Alegado had admitted to them that he set the fire because he could not find his lost bolo.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Antonio Alegado, is guilty of the crime of arson as defined and penalized under Article 549 of the Penal Code.
RULING:
Yes, the defendant is guilty of arson. The Court found the facts fully proved that Alegado intentionally and maliciously set fire to the dwelling house of Catalino Biado at a time when it was occupied by seven persons and a corpse, thereby committing the crime of arson under Article 549 of the Penal Code. His guilt was established not only by the testimony of witnesses present but also by the declarations of his own witnesses. The Court rejected any claim that Alegado was unaware people were inside, as he had been in the house and made his threat just moments before the fire. However, applying Article 11 of the Penal Code to reduce the penalty to its minimum degree due to the defendant’s lack of instruction, the Court affirmed the judgment with the modification that Alegado is sentenced to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, with its accessory penalties, and to pay the costs. The Court also affirmed the order from the attachment proceedings regarding his property. Furthermore, noting that the penalty under Article 549 was excessive relative to the degree of malice and the damage caused in this specific case, the Court deemed it proper to apply Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code by calling the attention of the Civil Governor to the case.