PEOPLE v.

SILVESTRE and ATIENZA

14 Dec 1931 | Villareal, J. | Appeal from CFI | Conejero

PETITIONER: The People of the Philippine Islands

RESPONDENT: Romana Silvestre and Martin Atienza
SUMMARY: Atienza and Silvestre were cohabiting defendants who were convicted as principal and accomplice respectively for the
crime of arson under Art. 550, para. 2 of the Penal Code. Atienza and Silvestre had moved barrios from Masocol to Santo Nino in
Bulacan pursuant to an agreement between them and Silvestre’s husband Joaquin where the latter would withdraw his complaint for
adultery. The defendants eventually started cohabiting again in Masocol (in the home of her son Nicolas de la Cruz from her first
marriage!). Atienza then burned down the de la Cruz house, saying prior to the arson that it was the only way he could revenge himself
against the people of Masocol who accused them of adultery. In this appeal from CFI Bulacan, Silvestre was acquitted as accomplice
as her acts did not constitute a crime: she merely listened to her codefendant's threat without raising a protest, and did not give the
alarm when the latter set fire to the house.
DOCTRINE: Passive presence at the scene of another's crime, silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement
or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal Code for complicity as an accomplice in the
commission of the crime.

1. The accused Silvestre was on her second marriage ISSUES/RATIO:

(with Domingo Joaquin) and cohabiting with a third
man, her co-defendant Atienza, starting March 1930.
Three months later, on May 16, the husband Joaquin
filed a complaint for adultery with the justice of the
peace of Paombong Municipality, Bulacan which was
eventually withdrawn when the defendants sent him a
signed agreement that they would stop cohabitation,
and not live again in the barrio of Masocol.
2. Silvestre met her son Nicolas in November and
“followed him home” to Masocol “under pretext of
asking him for nipa leaves” and Atienza followed.
3. On the night of November 25, 1930, after supper,
Atienza told Nicolas and his wife to take their furniture
out of the house because he was going to set fire to it.
Upon being asked why, Atienza said that the only way
he could be revenged upon the people of Masocol who
instigated the charge of adultery against him and his
lover. No one dared respond as Atienza was armed
with a pistol, and the de la Cruz couple left the house
at once to tell barrio lieutenant Buenaventura Ania.
4. The couple had not gone a hundred arms' length
(0.5km) when they heard "Fire! Fire!" and looked back
to see their home in flames. Nicolas went to the home
of his parents-in-law to get the furniture he deposited
there and carry it to the schoolhouse where Antonia
took refuge with their baby. Three people testified to
witnessing Atienza going away from the house where
the fire started, and Silvestre leaving as well.
5. The defendants were convicted by the CFI Bulacan of
arson under Art. 550 par. 2, Penal Code1 and were
sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the owners and
families of the 48 houses that burnt down. Atienza was
deemed a principal by direct participation (14y 8m 1d
cadena temporal) and Silvestre an accomplice (6y 1d
presidio mayor).
1. Whether Silvestre should be acquitted—YES.
 Article 14 of the Penal Code, in connection with
article 13, defines an accomplice as one who does
not take a direct part in the commission of the act,
who does not force or induce other to commit it,
nor cooperates in the commission of the act by
another act without which it would not have been
accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of
the act by previous or simultaneous actions. There
must be a certain degree of cooperation, whether
moral (advice, encouragement, or agreement) or
material (external acts).
 Silvestre’s acts were not acts of complicity: she
merely was silent at Atienza’s declaration of
intentions and was present when Martin Atienza
set fire to the house. There is no cooperation
without showing that her acts encouraged or
nerved Atienza to commit the crime. Her
subsequent failure to raise the alarm does not
make her liable as there is no sign of agreement.
2. Whether Atienza should be acquitted—NO. While
Atienza knew that it was only he and Silvestre in the de la
Cruz house, he cannot be convicted merely of arson less
serious than what the trial court sentenced him for, as that
house was the means of destroying the others, and he did
not know whether the others were then occupied or not.
Atienza might even have been convicted of arson in the
most serious degree if the information alleged that he knew
the other houses were occupied, taking into account that
barrio residents are accustomed to retire at the tolling of the
bell for the souls in purgatory (8 PM).

1ART. 550. The penalty of cadena temporal shall be imposed upon: motion, if the damage caused in such cases shall exceed six thousand two
2. Any person who shall set fire to any inhabited house or any building in hundred and fifty pesetas.
which people are accustomed to meet together, without knowing whether or
not such building or house was occupied at the time, or any freight train in