GR L 5566; (February, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5566
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BLAS MORO, defendant-appellant.
February 15, 1910
FACTS:
Blas Moro, described as “a mere boy,” was convicted of arson for burning the house of a Chinese complaining witness. The prosecution’s witnesses testified, and their testimony was found by the trial court to have conclusively established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite suggestions in the record of a possibility of false testimony procured by the complaining witness. In imposing the penalty, the trial court took into consideration Blas Moro’s “race and lack of mental and moral instruction” as an extenuating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code, to compensate for the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. The Attorney-General appealed, contending that Article 11 should not be applied to “crimes against property.”
ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of arson.
2. Whether the extenuating circumstance of “race and lack of mental and moral instruction” under Article 11 of the Penal Code is applicable in cases of “crimes against property,” specifically arson.
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
1. The Court found no basis to overturn the trial court’s finding of fact, stating that it could not say the record did not sustain the trial judge’s conclusion regarding the credibility of witnesses and the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. While acknowledging that Article 11 of the Penal Code has uniformly been declined in cases of simple robbery, theft, and estafa, the Court clarified that this general rule should not be extended to all “crimes against property.” Instead, for other classes of crimes against property, it is the duty of the court, in its sound discretion, to apply or refrain from applying the provisions of Article 11 with due regard to the particular circumstances of the case. In this specific case of arson, the trial court’s exercise of discretion in applying Article 11 was deemed appropriate and was upheld.