U.S. v.

Apostol
14 Phil. 92
September 2, 1909
CJ Arellano
(NULLUM CRIMEN,NULLA POENA SINE LEGE NO CRIME IF NO LAW PUNISHING IT :Presumption
of Intent)

Facts:
On December 16, 1907, there were five individuals, including Catalino Apostol, who went to
the house of Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul to inquire about
their missing carabaos.
After Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul said that they knew nothing
about it, Catalino Apostol told them to leave the house. However, they refused to do so.
Thus, Catalino set fire to the hut and the same was burnt down.
According to the trial court, the testimonies of the injured party provided sufficient evidence
to prove the responsibility of the accused.
Therefore, Catalino was proven to have committed the acts within the provisions of article
549 of the Penal Code. He sentenced to sixteen years and one day of cadena temporal. And
he ordered to indemnify the value of the burnt hut worth 1 pesos
Catalino then appealed to this Court with the following defense:
1. There was absence of proof of intent.
2. The fact that the burnt house was situated in an uninhabited place, it is improper to
apply Art 549 instead Art 554 of the Penal Code should be applied.

Issue:

MAIN ISSUE RELATED TO THE TOPIC.

1. Whether or not proof of intent is needed?

2. Whether or not due to the burnt hut being situated in an uninhabited place, it is not proper to
apply article 549, but article 554 in connection to 533 of the Penal Code?

Held:

1. No. As provided in Art 1 Penal Code, Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are
always presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law
punishes, unless the contrary shall appear.

In the case, there was no need to prove the intent of Catalino for committing the act. As
intent is largely a mental process, there is always a presumption of intent arising from overt
acts.

2. No. Based on the testimony of Tabilisima, they lived in the house that was situated in an
uninhabited place, surrounded by fields and far from the nearest house. They accused and
his companions arrived around 8 pm and questioned them about the missing carabaos
stolen from them. They knew nothing about it thus Catalino set the hut on fire. Their cries
for help could not be heard from another house. The said house was not worth more than
P1 because it was small and they themselves constructed it.
Art 553 cannot be applied because it punishes the setting fire to an edifice intended for
human habitation, in an uninhabited place, at a time when it is unoccupied. Given the
circumstance, It is article 549 that is applicable to the case wherein 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,