(CASE 7) G.R. No. 31770 | PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. with a bolo, and threatened to kill them.

eatened to kill them. Hernandez was then arrested which

ANTONINO HERNANDEZ (Joanna Bulauitan)
December 5, 1929 | C.J. Avanceña | Consummated Felony
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippine Islands
Defendant-Appellant: Antonino Hernandez
SUMMARY: Hernandez (defendant) set the roof of Dayrit (victim) on fire knowing
that the victim and his children were in the house. They had disagreements before
and it was proven that Hernandez was the perpetrator. The trial court convicted
Hernandez of frustrated murder but the Court modified it and found him guilty of
the crime of arson because the act was consummated.
DOCTRINE:
Consummated Felony
• When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present
• No attempted or frustrated in
• SPLs (unless provided otherwise)
• Formal crimes (such as acts of lasciviousness, threats, coercion,
slander)
• Impossible crimes
FACTS:
On the midnight of February 3, 1929, Miguel Dayrit was living in his house with his
children in Mabalacat, Pampanga when he noticed that his thatched (covered in
straw) roof was on fire.
As he was extinguishing the fire, he saw Antonino Hernandez beside the house,
carrying a stick. Dayrit then succeeded in putting out the fire. Hernandez knew that
Dayrit and his children were in the house that night.
In the testimony of the offended party, Dayrit, together with Artemio Tanglao and
Daniel Mallari, established that it was Hernandez who set fire to the house. The stick
that Dayrit saw with Hernandez on the night of the fire was leaning against the house
with the end burnt and a petroleum-soaked rag dangling from it. Daniel Mallari also
recognized the stick which Hernandez used in getting guava fruits.
showed his characteristic violence.
The trial court held that the crime committed was only frustrated arson.
ISSUE/S:
WON the trial court erred in convicting Hernandez of frustrated arson (YES)
RATIO:
The Court agreed with the Attorney-General that the crime was consummated,
not frustrated.
Hernandez did set the roof on fire as proven by the burned parts of the house.
Thus, the crime of arson was consummated, notwithstanding the fact that the fire
was afterwards extinguished, for, once the fire has been started, the
consummation of the crime of arson does not depend on the extend of the
damage caused.
DISPOSITION:
In accordance with Article 549 of the Penal Code the appellant is found GUILTY
of the CRIME OF ARSON, committed in a dwelling, knowing that within it were
the offended party and his children; and, considering one aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime, the defendant is sentenced to LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, WITH ACCESSORIES AND THE COSTS.
ADDED NOTES:
• Aggravating circumstance mentioned was that it happened during
nighttime and since the corresponding penalty for this crime is cadena
temporal to life imprisonment, the penalty imposed must be of maximum
degree which is life imprisonment
• Attorney-General recommended the exercise of clemency because
Hernandez was already 85 years old and the damage caused was slight
• Court agreed with the recommendation and sent to Governor-
General for consideration

Prior to the crime, Dayrit and Hernandez had disagreements because Dayrit accused
him of stealing paddy from his house. Dayrit complained to the barrio lieutenant and
as they went to Hernandez’ house, the latter stopped them from entering, was armed