The United States v.

Severino Valdes Y Guilgan

G.R. No. L-14128
December 10, 1918
*NOTE: This case was decided on 1918, some authors believe that there can’t be frustrated arson
anymore

FACTS:
On the morning of April 28, 1918 (8 or 9 am), a resident of the neighborhood by the name of
Mrs. Auckback called Mrs. Lewin and told her that there was smoke on the lower floor of her
house. She ordered her servant Paulino Banal to look for the fire and Paulino saw a burning
kerosene oil placed between the post of the house and in the partition of the entresol (mezzanine)
a piece of a jute sack and a rag were burning. During the time that it was burning, the accused
Valdes is cleaning the mezzanine and the other defendant, Hugo, was cleaning the horses.
Then, the police arrested the two accused. According to the statement of Valdes, he was the one
who set it to fire and that he was the one who set the fires which occurring around the house on
previous days. However, he stated that he was induced by Hugo due to the resentment they have
with their masters and he was promised that he will be given a peso for each fire he started.
On the other hand, Hugo denied his participation and that he was only burning mango leaves
during the time of the offense.
A policeman testified for the prosecution, stating that one morning before the commission of the
offense, he saw the defendant climbing up the wall of the warehouse behind the dwelling house
and in the warehouse, some straws were burned.
CHARGE/INFORMATION: A complaint was filed by the prosecuting attorney before the CFI
charging Valdes and Hugo Labarro with the crime of arson. The case of Hugo Labarro was
dismissed.
CFI Ruling:
The fact of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag, soaked with kerosene oil and placed beside an
upright of the house and a partition of the entresol of the building, thus endangering the burning
of the latter, constitutes the crime of frustrated arson of an inhabited house, on an occasion when
some of its inmates were inside of it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of frustrated arson was committed.
SC RULING:
The crime is classified only as frustrated arson since the defendant performed all the acts
conceive to the burning of said house, but nevertheless., owing to causes independent of his will,
the criminal act which he intended was not produced. The offense committed cannot be
classified as consummated arson by the burning of said inhabited house, for the reason that no
part of the building had yet commenced burning, although, as the piece of the sack and the rag,
soaked in kerosene oil, had been placed near partition of the entresol, the partition might have
started to burn, had the fire not been put out on time. RPC