GR L 3831; (August, 1908) (Digest)
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CANUTO BUTARDO, AND VALENTIN BUTARDO, defendants-appellants.
August 6, 1908
FACTS: Canuto Butardo and Valentin Butardo claimed ownership of a lot and house in Paoay, Ilocos Norte, which was occupied by Juana and Lauriano, children of their uncle, Antonio Butardo. On February 9, 1906, at 8 o’clock in the evening, the accused went to the house, demanded possession, and affixed a notice to vacate. Upon refusal, they left but returned an hour later. While Juana and Lauriano were still inside, the accused set fire to the eastern side of the roof near a window. Two neighbors, Juan Exebeo and Apolonio Jurtado, attempted to put out the fire but were threatened by the accused and forced to desist. The house and chattels within were destroyed, but the occupants escaped.
The defense presented an alibi, which the trial court rejected. The Court of First Instance convicted the accused under Article 549 of the Penal Code, imposing a sentence of sixteen years and one day of cadena temporal. The appellants argued that the punishment was disproportionate for a nipa house of trifling value and that their act was merely private revenge or a means of asserting what they considered their civil rights, not a depraved disregard for human life. The Court noted that the fire was set secretly and as a surprise after nightfall, not in the presence of or with the knowledge of the inhabitants.
ISSUE: Whether the accused were properly convicted and sentenced for arson under Article 549 of the Penal Code, considering the arguments regarding the value of the property and the alleged motive of asserting civil rights.
RULING: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The Court held that the guilt of the accused was clearly established by the evidence. It clarified that the severity of the law against arson in an inhabited house (Article 549) is measured not by the value of the property destroyed, but by the human lives exposed to destruction by the crime. The Court rejected the arguments that the act was lessened in enormity because the victims were relatives, or because of harbored ill feeling, or that it was an assertion of civil rights by ignorant men. The design to start the fire secretly and as a surprise, exposing the inhabitants to danger, was precisely what the statute aimed to punish severely.
The Court distinguished this case from United States vs. Zabala, where Article 549 was not applied to a man who set fire to his own house while his son was in his company. In this case, the Butardos set fire to a dwelling inhabited by others (their cousins), thereby exposing them to clear danger, which falls squarely under the severe penalties of Article 549.