Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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. No.
As
provided
in
Art
1
Penal
Code,
Criminal
intent
as
well
as
the
will
to
commit
a
crime
are
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
to
prove
the
intent
of
Catalino
for
committing
the
act.
As
intent
is
largely
a
mental
process,
there
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
thus
Catalino
set
the
hut
on
fire.
Their
cries
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
constructed
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
wherein
punishes
with
the
very
severe
penalties
of
cadena
temporal
to
cadena
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,