THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. FRANK E. BURNS, defendant-appellant 

G.R. No. L-16648 Date:

March 5, 1921 

I. Ticker 

Arson 

II. Doctrine 

Art. 6 of the RPC states that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present. 

III. Facts •

 A fire broke out in Pedro de la Cruz (Pambujan, Province of Samar). This awakened the
people inside the house. It was said that flames were coming from the basement (where
Pedro’s automobile was kept), and the stairs (at the usual means of exit) had been cut
off. 
 The residents were able to escape through the window except one servant named
Cipriano Jazmin (14 years old) who was burned to death. 
 Appellant, Frank E. Burns, stands convicted as the responsible author due to his
resentment towards Pedro de la Cruz as a competitor in the operation of his automobile
for hire. 
 Burns is a resident of Catarman, Samar, where his shop was plus a number of his
automobiles for hire. 
 September 5, 2018 (mid-afternoon) – Burns left Catarman in an automobile upon a trip to
Laoang, where he had an arrangement to meet and convey Major Newman of the Philippine
Constabulary morning of September 6. Upon this trip, Burns was accompanied by Casimiro
Breva (his employee), and one other person. 
 Burns spent the night (September 5) in Pambujan, since it is along the way to Laoang, also,
he once lived in this municipality, and he find it convenient to stay there. 
 According to Casimiro, the principal witness for the prosecution, Burns asked him if he
needed money. He said that he did (to buy cigarettes); Burns then gave him money, in
exchange, Casimiro to search for the automobile of Pedro de la Cruz as the appellant was
seeking a chance to burn it. The witness, unsuccessful in his search, returned to Burns,
but the latter was already waiting near the stairs leading into the house of Pedro. Burns told
the witness that he wished for him (Casimiro) to serve as lookout for people passing along
the street – a payment of P200 will be given to him upon returning to Catarman in exchange
of his assistance in burning Pedro’s automobile. 
 As agreed upon the appellant and the witness, when no people aboard the streets, they
will accomplish the work (crime planned). Upon arrival at Pedro’s place, the appellant
told the witness to guard the street (3 brazas from the open door leading to Pedro’s
automobile). 
 The witness even cautioned the appellant against burning the car because it might, lest
the house and its inmates should be consumed. However, the appellant answered, “Let
whatever burns burn; and those die who ought to die.” 
  Burns lighted a match after opening some part of the car, then the witness saw that the
car was afire. 
 Other witnesses (policemen) testified that upon seeing that the place was on fire, even
Casimiro to aid in the effort to extinguish the fire, but Burns objected saying that
Casimiro was his companion.  Nevertheless, the men compelled the witness to
accompany them and help in the work of extinguishing the fire
 Burns claimed to be innocent, presenting a different version of the story, and
questioning the reliability of Casimiro’s statements against him. 

IV. Issues 

W/N the crime of arson was indeed consummated even if the fire was
extinguished. 

V. Decision/Ruling 

It was held that, “in this connection it is to be remembered that the crime of arson is
consummated in the mere act of setting a house afire, and the fact that a fire may be
extinguished before appreciable damage is done in no wise reduces the gravity of the
offense.

The supreme court of Spain has held that where fire is once actually set, the offense
cannot be considered as frustrated arson merely because the fire is put out before the
flames have extensively spread. (Decision of Dec. 11, 1875; 3 Viada, p. 603.)

This doctrine was applied by this court in U.S. vs. Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho (25 Phil.,
187), where a fire set by incendiaries was put out before the house was destroyed. The
trial court having found the accused guilty of frustrated arson, this estimation of the
offense was rejected by this court, which applied the penalty for the consummated
offense.”