On December 16, 1907, accused Catalino Apostol and four other

individuals went to the hut of Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara

and Tranquilino Manipul to inquire after some carabaos had
disappeared. They also believed that they had stolen the carabaos
from them. When the above-mentioned inmates answered that they
knew nothing about the matter, the accused and his companions
ordered them to leave their house, but as the three men named
above refused to do so, the accused Catalino Apostol, set fire to the
hut and the same was burnt down. The trial court of Nueva Ecija
sentenced the defendant to sixteen years and one day of cadena
temporal, to the accessories of the law, to indemnify the value of
the burnt hut in the sum of P1, and to pay the costs. An appeal has
been taken to the Supreme Court and one of the defense claims of
the defendant is their absence of proof of criminal intent.

ISSUE: Is the absence of proof of criminal intent a valid defense?

DECISION: No. Decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED.

RATIO: Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime is always

presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act
which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. If an act is
proven to be unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima facie.