US vs.

Go Foo Suy and Go Jancho

Sept. 5, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee,
vs. GO FOO SUY and GO JANCHO, defendants and appellants.

NOTE: On the night of Feb. 24, 1912. There were two fires on Calle Norte America in Cebu City. One in
House No. 30 and one in House No. 26.

It turns out that the fire in House No. 26, where the accused lived, were started by them to get the
P25,000 insurance money for their goods, as they were merchants of dry goods who have been
experiencing losses over a period of approx. 18 months prior to the fire.

FACTS:

● The main subject of this case, however, is the fire in the house beside it, house No. 26, where a
fire broke out while the fire in 30 was in progress for a considerable time (Note: the cause of the
fire in 30 was not stated)
○ 30 and 26 are separated by a passageway with a width near the street of about 3 ½
meters and in the rear (where the fire in 30 was) of 9 ½ meters
○ Both buildings are made entirely of strong materials

● The accused were the occupants of House No. 26; they rented the entire
building from its owner, named Filomena Burgos
○ They have a dry goods store and at the same time occupied the upper portion as living
quarters
○ The accused also had their own tenants occupying parts of the building

● The Complaint in this case also included Go Juat Chiong, Go Cho Jim, and Go Quip (also
occupants of the House no. 26), the first two being acquitted by the court and the last not
having been apprehended at the time of the trial.

● There were three portions of House No. 26 that caught fire:

1) In the bodega (where some rolls of sauale [sawali] on the floor were afire; there were two
empty bottles which had contained petroleum as well as a broken match box on the floor near
the burning sauale)

2) In the trastienda (office) (where bolts of cloth stored on impromptu shelves made of boxes
piled on above the other were afire; The burned bolts of cloth were covered with petroleum is
indisputably established by the testimony of competent witnesses.)
 3) The room occupied by Antipas Paquipo (specifically her bed), who was the wife of a
Chinaman. (an empty bottle which had contained petroleum and a small kerosene lamp, also
empty, were found underneath her bed)

Photograph of the bed showed that only the matting which formed its bottom and the
furnishings were burned.

● The accused claim that very shortly after the alarm of the fire in House No. 30, they all left
House No. 26 for the plaza and never went back home.
They claim that the fire was probably started by strangers after they left.

● Prosecution witnesses, however, state that the fire in House No. 26 started when the one in
House No. 30 was no longer in danger of spreading and shortly before the fire in House No. 26
started, the accused were seen inside the building gathering up their (accounting) books,
receipts and papers. And the accused even admit that there was no fire when they left the
house.

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU RULED THAT:

● The two accused-appellants guilty of FRUSTRATED ARSON under Art. 549 of the Old Penal
Code (setting fire to a building which they knew at the time to be occupied by one or more
persons) and;

● 8 years and 1 day of cadena temporal + accessory penalties + 1/5 of the costs of the cause for
the crime.

ISSUE: If the accused are guilty of frustrated arson.

HELD: However, they are guilty not under Art. 549 but Art. 550, par. 2, in connection with Art. 551. In
view of the considerable tie which intervened between the discovery of fire in House No. 30 and its
discovery in House No. 26, and considering the noise which must have been made by the crowd which
assisted in putting the fire out in House No. 30, it is not probable that any person residing in House No.
26 was caught unaware when the fire broke out in this house and also bearing in mind the suspicion
which rests upon the conduct of all the inmates of this house, we are of the opinion that the defendants
ought not to be charged with knowledge that the building was occupied at the time they set it on fire.

Accused contend that the offense should fall under Art. 561, which provides: if the burned things shall
be the exclusive property of the incendiary, he shall suffer a penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum to
prision correccional in its minimum, if the arson shall have been committed with intent to defraud or
cause damage to another however, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Spain: setting fire to the contents
of a building constitutes the consummated crime of setting fire to the building; it is therefore
immaterial that the contents belonged to the accused while the building belonged to a third person.
Still, the Supreme Court disagrees with the Court of First Instance’s application of Art. 549. An essential
element of arson under Art. 549 is knowledge on the part of the wrongdoer that the building was
“occupied at the time by one or more persons”

The judgment of the lower court is therefore modified accordingly and the appellants sentenced to ten
years and one day of presidio mayor. In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The
appellants will pay the costs of this instance. So ordered.

RATIO:

● The Chief of police stated that there was no wind during that night.
● Two nipa shacks located on the opposite side of House No. 30 were not damaged.
● The only openings in the side of House No. 26 nearest to House No. 30 were 2 windows; at
least 1 opened into the trastienda but was closed to the time the fire was discovered in the said
room; pieces of paper in the said window were not touched by the fire.
● The accused claim that the fire in the trastienda caught from the fire in the bodega by passing
through the partition between the 2 rooms but there was no evidence of the flames passing
from one room to another; no signs of fire on the partition.

● As to the windows in the upper floor opening to the rear, the window nearest House No. 30 was
closed while the other was open when a photograph was taken; the bed of Antipas was near
this window)

Although it cannot be known whether the window was open or not when the fire occurred,
even assuming that it was, sparks from House No. 30 would have had to cross the passageway
of 9 ½ meters, as well as the additional space between the nearest wall of 26 and the window
near the other side, in order to reach House No. 26. The fire in 30 was not inclined to spread and
the houses with highly inflammable material (nipa) were much nearer than the bed in question
and the sparks of the fire could have reached the said houses without impediment but they
were not touched by the fire in 30. It’s highly improbable that sparks from House no. 30 entered
the window and set fire to the bed. In addition, evidence of incendiarism (empty kerosene
receptacles) were found in the room where the bed was.

● As for the bodega, the accused claim that some unknown person found access to the bodega
through its door and set fire to it the Supreme Court, however, gave weight to the testimony of
one Cuico (owner of one of the nipa huts near 30) who testified that while he was assisting the
fire in 30, he saw smoke issuing from the bodega of 26 and had to break open the door to the
bodega in order to get inside it (thus, the door to the bodega was not opened when the fire
started, unlike what the accused claim)