Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 226 views

    University of The Philippines College of Law: Us, V. Catalino Apostol

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    (1) Catalino Apostol and others confronted Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul about stolen carabaos, and when they denied knowledge, Apostol set fire to their hut when they refused to leave. (2) The trial court found Apostol responsible and sentenced him to 16 years imprisonment for violating Article 549 of the Penal Code. (3) Apostol argued an absence of criminal intent and that Article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place, but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding criminal intent is presumed and Article 549 properly applied regardless of location.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    University of The Philippines College of Law: Us, V. Catalino Apostol

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    226 views2 pages
    (1) Catalino Apostol and others confronted Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul about stolen carabaos, and when they denied knowledge, Apostol set fire to their hut when they refused to leave. (2) The trial court found Apostol responsible and sentenced him to 16 years imprisonment for violating Article 549 of the Penal Code. (3) Apostol argued an absence of criminal intent and that Article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place, but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding criminal intent is presumed and Article 549 properly applied regardless of location.

    Original Description:

    c

    Original Title

    5. US v. Apostol

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Catalino Apostol and others confronted Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul about stolen carabaos, and when they denied knowledge, Apostol set fire to their hut when they refused to leave. (2) The trial court found Apostol responsible and sentenced him to 16 years imprisonment for violating Article 549 of the Penal Code. (3) Apostol argued an absence of criminal intent and that Article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place, but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding criminal intent is presumed and Article 549 properly applied regardless of location.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    226 views2 pages

    University of The Philippines College of Law: Us, V. Catalino Apostol

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    (1) Catalino Apostol and others confronted Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul about stolen carabaos, and when they denied knowledge, Apostol set fire to their hut when they refused to leave. (2) The trial court found Apostol responsible and sentenced him to 16 years imprisonment for violating Article 549 of the Penal Code. (3) Apostol argued an absence of criminal intent and that Article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place, but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding criminal intent is presumed and Article 549 properly applied regardless of location.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    Topic Felonies; Presumption of Intent


    Case Name US, v. CATALINO APOSTOL
    Ponente ARELLANO, c.j.

    RELEVANT FACTS

    Five individuals, among them Catalino Apostol, went to the house where Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino
    Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul were living, and asked about some carabaos that were stolen from
    them, and because Tabilisima et al answered that they knew nothing about the matter, ordered them to
    leave the house, but as the Tabilisima et al refused to do so, Apostol, set fire to the hut and the
    same was burnt down.

    TC held that the responsibility of Apostol has been fully established by the testimony of the injured
    parties and as the act comes within the provisions of article 549 of the Penal Code, Apostol was
    sentenced to sixteen years and one day of cadena temporal, to the accessories of the law, to indemnity
    the value of the burnt hut in the sum of P1, and to pay the costs.

    Arguments of Apostol:

    (1) The absence of proof of criminal intent;


    (2) that in view of the fact that the burnt hut was situated in an uninhabited place, it is not proper to
    apply article 549, but article 554 of the Penal Code.

    ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

    Issue Ratio
    [Relevant] W/N Apostol NO.
    should be acquitted due to
    absence of proof of criminal Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are always
    intent? presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act
    which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. (Art. 1,
    Penal Code.)
    W/N Apostol should be NO.
    acquitted due to the fact that
    the burnt hut was situated in Article 554 punishes the setting fire to a building intended for habitation,
    an uninhabited place, it is not in an uninhabited place, does not apply, because the article in
    proper to apply article 549, question refers to an edifice intended for human habitation in an
    but article 554 of the Penal uninhabited place at a time when the same is unoccupied.
    Code?
    It is article 549, which 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," that must be applied.
    But in view of the nature of the crime and considering the
    circumstances, recognizes the extreme severity of the penalty;
    therefore we apply the remedy afforded it by article 2, paragraph 2, of
    the Penal Code, when a strict application of the provisions of the code
    would result in an excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
    degree of malice and the injury caused by the crime.

    RULING
    University of the Philippines College of Law
    For the reasons above set forth the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the
    Appellant. Ten days from date let a confirming judgment be entered, and ten days thereafter let the
    case be remanded to the lower court for action. Without prejudice to the immediate execution of the
    judgment, let the clerk of this court, as provided in the said article 2 of the Penal Code, respectfully
    address a communication to the Honorable, the Governor-General of these Islands, giving the result of
    this decision and the sentence, requesting him, should he so desire, to make use of the prerogative
    with which he is invested in order to reduce or mitigate the penalty imposed. So ordered.

    You might also like