G.R. Nos. 19744, 19745. August 20, 1923

STATEMENT

In R. G. No. 19744, the following information was filed against the
defendants:

“That on or about the night of the third, or the dawn of the 4th day of July,
1921, in the sitio of Mintal, municipal district of Tugbok, Province of
Davao, Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the
aforesaid accused and some other persons, conspiring and acting together, did
wilfully, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously burn the house inhabited by
Z. Yokota, which was completely reduced to ashes, together with all of the
properties contained therein, causing a damage or loss to said Z. Yokota
amounting to a total of about P4,911, more or less.

“Contrary to law.”

In R. G. No. 19745, it is charged that at the same time and manner, and in
the sitio of Mintal, the defendants “did unlawfully, maliciously, and
feloniously burn the house (formerly occupied by one Hamamotus) belonging to the
Mintal Plantation Company worth about P1,000,” reduced it to ashes, causing the
loss of that amount.

The two cases were styled in the Court of First Instance of Davao as Nos. 706
and 707. By stipulation of the parties, both cases were tried jointly. As a
result in R. G. No. 19744, the defendants were found guilty of the crime of
arson, as defined and penalized in article 550, with the extenuating
circumstance in their favor of drunkenness not habitual, and each was sentenced
to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, to indemnify jointly and
severally the offended party Yokota in the sum of P3,500, and to pay the costs
in equal parts, and in R. G. No. 19745, they were found guilty and each of them
was sentenced to six months and one day of presidio correccional under
article 557, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code, to indemnify jointly and severally
the Mintal Plantation Company in the sum of P1,000, or to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one day for every twelve and a
half pesetas which they may fail to pay, which subsidiary imprisonment
should not exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs in
equal parts, from which the defendants have appealed, claiming, first, that the
trial court erred in finding that a conspiracy existed between the defendants to
burn the property, and in imposing the sentence, and, second, in sentencing the
appellants under paragraph 2 of article 550 of Penal Code, and to indemnify the
offended party, Z. Yokota, in the sum of P3,500.

JOHNS, J.:

In a well-prepared opinion the lower court made a correct and complete
analysis of the facts, from which it appears that the defendants were members of
a mutual association between which and the Mintal Plantation there was trouble
and friction. The defendants believed that Yokota was a spy for the Mintal
corporation and informed it of the secrets and movements of the association.
July 3, 1921, a notice was sent to the members of the association, requesting
them to assemble that evening in the house of a Japanese named Mijitaka, to
discuss what should be done with the association. About 6 p. m., the majority
voted for its dissolution. The question then came up as to what should be done
with the P30 in the treasury. It was suggested that the money should be donated
to a Japanese hospital, but after some discussion the majority voted in favor of
investing the fund in the purchase of wine and groceries to drink and eat on the
occasion, which were later purchased and consumed. Some time afterwards, while
the members were more or less under the influence of liquor, one of the lamps in
the house was put out, and it was noticed that someone had left the house, and
it was later ascertained that it was Yokota. As the trial court found, someone
said: “Let’s go to Yokota’s house,” and all the accused with their companions as
moved by one single spring went to the house of Yokota, and on reaching it, they
set fire to it, pouring petroleum on the dry leaves of hemp and cogon which some
of them had placed downstairs. The house was not destroyed at that time, because
another Japanese, Marouka, put out the fire. Upon leaving Yokota’s house, the
defendants, being tired and hungry, went to the house of the defendant Miyata,
and there ate some rice. After eating all of them signed their respective names
to a paper to the effect that no one would reveal the names of those who set
fire to the house of Yokota. After this they agreed to return to Yokota’s house
to see whether or not it was burned. In returning they passed an unoccupied
house belonging to the Mintal Plantation. One of the group stated that it should
be burned, and they all shouted: “Let’s burn it,” and they set fire to it. From
there they went to the house of Yokota, to which they again set fire, and as a
result the house was completely reduced to ashes.

The trial court found that the defendants Miyata, Furuta, Sinchi, and Nichi
were the persons who actually set fire to Yokota’s house the first time, and
that Miyata and Furuta and Utsuka and Mimura set the fire the second time, and
that Miyata, Furuta, and Tanonaka were the persons who set fire to the house of
the Mintal Plantation. The remaining defendants contend that there is no proof
of conspiracy, and for such reason they are not guilty of the crime of arson.
That claim is not tenable. The proof is conclusive that the defendants were all
together at the meeting in the house of Mijitaka; that they all left there and
went direct to the house of Yokota, and were all present when an attempt was
made to burn his house the first time. Together they left and went to the house
of Miyata where they ate some rice, and all of them left there and were together
at the time the house of the Mintal Plantation was burned. They left that house
and again went back to the house of Yokota to which they again set fire, and it
was destroyed.

The action and conduct of the parties is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy
to do that which was done, and, as the trial court found, all of the defendants
are guilty of the crime.

The defendants contend that the information as drawn will not sustain a
conviction under paragraph 2 of article 550 of the Penal Code, and the
Attorney-General cites the decision of this court in the case of People
vs. Miyata and Furuta, R. G. No. 18812.^[1] The information there is the identical
information in the instant case, and the decision in that case was signed by
every member of the court present, including the writer of this opinion.

In construing the information, the opinion in that case says:

“It is not alleged in the information that the accused were ignorant of the
fact that there were any persons in the house, and article 550 of the Penal
Code, applied by the trial court, is not applicable, but article 557, subsection
4, there being to be imposed, in view of all the circumstances of the case, the
penalty of six years of presidio correccional.” (Citing U.S. vs.
Evangelista, 39 Phil., 825.)

After careful consideration, the writer is clearly of the opinion that the
information is sufficient to sustain the conviction under paragraph 2 of article
550, and that the sentence imposed by the trial court in the instant case is
correct, and upon that question, the opinion in R. G. No. 18812 is not legally
sound. The information in R. G. No. 19744 specifically alleges that the
defendants did “maliciously and feloniously burn the house inhabited by Z.
Yokota,” and the proof is conclusive that it was the usual place of residence
and abode of Yokota. Even though Yokota was temporarily absent at the time of
the fire, the house was “inhabited by Z. Yokota” within the meaning of the law.
Be that as it may, the construction placed upon the information in case R. G.
No. 18812 is stare decisis, as to the instant case, in particular, and,
for the purposes of this decision, must be deemed the law.

The proof is conclusive that the defendants were bent upon the malicious
destruction of property, and that their conduct was vicious and revengeful.

In case R. G. No. 19744, the decision of the lower court, convicting the
defendants of the crime, will be sustained, but, following the decision of this
court in R. G. No. 18812, the sentence will be reduced from twelve years and one
day of cadena temporal to the period of six years of presidio
correccional, and that the appellants indemnify the offended party jointly
and severally in the sum of P1,200, or to suffer the corresponding subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-sixteenth of the costs.

In a well-prepared, analytical brief, the Attorney-General recommends that,
in case R. G. No. 19745, the medium penalty, under paragraph 3, article 557, of
the Penal Code, instead of the minimum, should be imposed upon the appellants,
and with that we agree. In that case the sentence of the lower court will be
modified, and increased, and, instead of a sentence for the period of six months
and one clay of presidio correccional, each of the appellants is hereby
sentenced for the period of two years, eleven months and ten days, and in all
other respects, the judgment of the lower court in that case is affirmed. Each
of the appellants to pay his pro rata share of the costs in this court.
So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Romualdez,
JJ., concur.
Araullo, C.J., did not take part.

---

^[1] Promulgated December 29, 1922, not
reported.