US v Apostol

U.S. v. Apostol 14 Phil. 92 September 2, 1909 CJ Arellano (NULLUM CRIMEN,NULLA POENA SINE LEGE  –NO CRIME IF NO LAW PUNISHING IT :Presumption of Intent) Facts: On December 16, 1907, there were five individuals, including including Catalino Apostol, who went to  the house of Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul to inquire about their missing carabaos. After Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul said that they knew nothing  about it, Catalino Apostol told them to leave the house. However, they refused to do so. Thus, Catalino set fire to the hut and the same was burnt down. According to the trial court, the testimonies of the injured party provided sufficient evidence  to prove the responsibility of the accused. Therefore, Catalino was proven to have committed the acts within the provisions of article  549 of the Penal Code. He sentenced to sixteen years and one day of cadena temporal. And he ordered to indemnify the value of the burnt hut worth 1 pesos Catalino then appealed to this Court with the following defense:  1. There was absence of proof of intent. 2. The fact that the burnt house was situated in an uninhabited place, it is improper to apply Art 549 instead Art 554 of the Penal Code should be applied. Issue: MAIN ISSUE RELATED TO THE TOPIC. 1. Whether or not proof of intent is needed? 2. Whether or not due to the burnt hut being situated in an uninhabited place, it is not proper to apply article 549, but article 554 in connection to 533 of the Penal Code? Held: 1.

Code , Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are No. As provided in Art 1 Penal Code, always presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. In the case, there was no need need to prove the intent of Catalino for committing the act. As intent is largely a mental process, t here is always a presumption of intent arising from overt acts.

2.

No. Based on the testimony of Tabilisima, they lived in the house that was situated in an uninhabited place, surrounded by fields and far from the nearest house. They accused and his companions arrived around 8 pm and questioned them about the missing carabaos stolen from them. They knew nothing about it t hus Catalino set the hut on fire. Their cr ies for help could not be heard from another house. The said house was not worth more than P1 because it was small and they themselves c onstructed it.

Art 553 cannot be applied because it punishes the setting fire to an edifice intended for human habitation, in an uninhabited place, at a time when it is unoccupied. Given the circumstance, It is article 549 that is applicable to the case where in punishes with the very severe penalties of cadena temporal to c adena perpetua "those who shall set fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge that one or more persons were within the same,”