At the date of the fire, the appellant was moving her store

and personal effects to a new place, 32 Ronquillo.

Appellants employee, Jose Bello, also testified that in the
morning of the fire, acting on the instructions of the
appellant, he packed in a box a number of valuable hats
said to be sold to a friend, and later transferred to the new
place. Things of student boarders were also already
transferred.
A detective, Detective Percival, also testified that on the
morning after the fire, he found in the living quarters an
iron bed, a wardrobe, a box, an old bed, old leather box
containing some papers of no importance, and one or two
pieces of clothing.
Son of appellant testified that he moved from the building
to the new place just previous to the fire on June 2.
The following evidence relative to an earlier fire, a May 31 fire,
were also introduced to prove the June 2 fire:
The acting chief of fire department testified that an alarm
was turned in for a fire which proved to be in the rear of a
piano adjacent to the part of the building occupied by
appellant. the fire burned a hole through a door which
opened into a court or passageway to which access could
also be had through a similar door on the premises of the
appellant. His assistant found four bottles with some coal in
it place upon the piano.
Servant of appellant, Tedorico Fungco, testified that on the
morning of the May 31 fire, the appellant ordered him to
light some papers in a box standing in the court just
between appellant door and the door to the piano store.
After he refused to do so, he saw appellant saturate the
papers in the box with petroleum and the latter then sent
him to buy petroleum. Soon he heard people crying fire,
fire.
The defense objected to the introduction of all the evidence
relative to the fire of May 31 as incompetent and not the fire
charged in the information.
Ramona Evangelista was convicted in the court of first instance
of the crime of arson. This is now an appeal to the SC.

RULING: Judgement affirmed.

Whether there was error in receiving the evidence relative
to the fire occurring on May 31 NO.

US v. EVANGELISTA
March 25, 1913 | Trent, J. | Previous conduct as evidence
Digester: Roa, Pia
SUMMARY: Appellant Ramon Evangelista was the tenant of a
building where he had a store for selling hats and other articles on
the ground floor, and living quarters for herself and her boarders
on the second floor. On June 2, 1912, fire originated in the second
floor of the same building in the appellants living quarters. On the
trial for the case, not only evidence relative to the June 2 fire were
introduced, but also relative to an earlier May 31 fire. The defense
objected to the introduction of all the evidence relative to the fire
of May 31 as incompetent and not the fire charged in the
information. Ramona Evangelista was convicted in the court of
first instance of the crime of arson. This is now an appeal to the
SC. SC affirmed judgment saying that there was no error in
receiving the evidence as to the fire occurring on May 31 to show
intent.
DOCTRINE: Previous conduct may be received as evidence to
prove intent. On a trial for arson, the prosecution may prove that
the defendant had set fire to the building a few days previous to
the burning alleged in the information for the purpose only of
establishing the criminal intent of the defendant.
FACTS:
Appellant Ramon Evangelista was the tenant of a building
where he had a store for selling hats and other articles on the
ground floor, and living quarters for herself and her boarders
on the second floor. On June 2, 1912, fire originated in the
second floor of the same building in the appellants living
quarters.
On the trial for Arson for the June 2 fire, which is the fire
charged in the information, the following evidence were
introduced:
The acting chief of the fire department testified that the fire
could not have gained headway or caused the damage it did
if coal oil had not been used, and that the whole place
appeared to have been saturated with coal oil.
Appellant had 3 insurance policies for his store dated Dec
1911 and May 1912 written by the same company, and May
1912 written by another company.
Administrator of estate, of which the building was a part,
testified that appellant owed the estate for rent, and that he
given her notice to move on about June.

subsequently setting fire to the house. (People v.

Shainwold)
Where a person is charged with the commission of a
specific crime, testimony may be received of other similar
acts, committed about the same time, for the purpose only
of establishing the criminal intent of the accused. (Kight v.
State)
"evidence tending to show that defendant started the
former fire was admissible to prove intent." (People v.
Lattimore)
NOTES:

There was no error in receiving the evidence as to the fire

occurring on May 31 to show intent.

While it was not the fire charged in the information, and does
not by any means amount to direct evidence against the
accused, it was competent to prove the intent of the accused in
setting the fire which was charged in the information.
In earlier cases, the court held that:
On a trial for arson, the prosecution may prove that the
prisoner had attempted to set fire to the house on a day
previous to the burning alleged in the indictment, for the
purpose of showing the intent of the prisoner in