Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    40 - Us. V. Apostol, 14 Phil 92 (1909)

    Uploaded by

    Digesting Facts
    1. Catalino Apostol and others went to inquire about missing carabaos at the house of Pedro Tabilisima. When they said they knew nothing, Catalino set the hut on fire. 2. Catalino was found guilty and sentenced under article 549 of the Penal Code. On appeal, he argued lack of intent and that article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place. 3. The court held that intent is presumed from overt acts under the Penal Code. It also held that article 549 was properly applied since Tabilisima lived in the isolated hut, making the burning a crime against habitation.

    Copyright:

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

    40 - Us. V. Apostol, 14 Phil 92 (1909)

    Uploaded by

    Digesting Facts
    69 views2 pages
    1. Catalino Apostol and others went to inquire about missing carabaos at the house of Pedro Tabilisima. When they said they knew nothing, Catalino set the hut on fire. 2. Catalino was found guilty and sentenced under article 549 of the Penal Code. On appeal, he argued lack of intent and that article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place. 3. The court held that intent is presumed from overt acts under the Penal Code. It also held that article 549 was properly applied since Tabilisima lived in the isolated hut, making the burning a crime against habitation.

    Original Title

    40_Us. V. Apostol, 14 Phil 92 (1909)

    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 went to inquire about missing carabaos at the house of Pedro Tabilisima. When they said they knew nothing, Catalino set the hut on fire. 2. Catalino was found guilty and sentenced under article 549 of the Penal Code. On appeal, he argued lack of intent and that article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place. 3. The court held that intent is presumed from overt acts under the Penal Code. It also held that article 549 was properly applied since Tabilisima lived in the isolated hut, making the burning a crime against habitation.

    Copyright:

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

    40 - Us. V. Apostol, 14 Phil 92 (1909)

    Uploaded by

    Digesting Facts
    1. Catalino Apostol and others went to inquire about missing carabaos at the house of Pedro Tabilisima. When they said they knew nothing, Catalino set the hut on fire. 2. Catalino was found guilty and sentenced under article 549 of the Penal Code. On appeal, he argued lack of intent and that article 554 should apply since the hut was in an uninhabited place. 3. The court held that intent is presumed from overt acts under the Penal Code. It also held that article 549 was properly applied since Tabilisima lived in the isolated hut, making the burning a crime against habitation.

    Copyright:

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

     

    U.S. v. Apostol14 Phil. 92September 2, 1909CJ Arellano(NULLUM CRIMEN,NULLA


    POENA SINE LEGE
     –
    NO CRIME IF NO LAW PUNISHING IT :Presumptionof Intent)
     
    Facts:
     On December 16, 1907, there were five individuals, including Catalino Apostol, who
    went tothe house of Pedro Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul to
    inquire abouttheir missing carabaos.

     After Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul said that they knew
    nothingabout 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
    evidenceto 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
    toapply Art 549 instead Art 554 of the Penal Code should be applied.

    Issue:

    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 toapply 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
    arealways presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the
    lawpunishes, unless the contrary shall appear.In the case, there was no need to prove
    the intent of Catalino for committing the act. Asintent is largely a mental process, there
    is always a presumption of intent arising from overtacts.
    2. No.

    Based on the testimony of Tabilisima, they lived in the house that was situated in
    anuninhabited place, surrounded by fields and far from the nearest house. They
    accused andhis companions arrived around 8 pm and questioned them about the
    missing carabaosstolen from them. They knew nothing about it thus Catalino set the hut
    on fire. Their criesfor help could not be heard from another house. The said house was
    not worth more thanP1 because it was small and they themselves constructed it.

    You might also like