People vs. Arbolante
October 17, 1991 | Villarama, J. | Arson under PD 1613
PETITIONER: People
RESPONDENTS: Orlando Arbolante, Lorenzo, Catabay
FACTS
1. Accused Lorenzo, Catabay, Arbolante and several John Does
were charged with the crime of arson under P.D. No. 1613
(Amending the Law on Arson).
o Arbolante and Lorenzo pleaded not guilty. Catabay is at
large.
2. The prosecution alleged that:
o Complainant Albino with his wife, nieces, nephews and
brother were at their house resting when they heard
sudden gunfires at the southern portion of the house.
(Location: Tuao, Cagayan)
o A group of 70 people (believed to be members of NPA)
shouted for Miranda to come down and bring out his
gun, otherwise, they would burn his house.
o Miranda refused, so his granary located 10 meters away
was set on fire.
o Albino saw accused Arbolante climbing the roof and
later on set the cogon on fire. He also saw co-accused
Catabay but he was merely standing.
o Eventually, Albino was constrained to go out for the sake
of the children.
o Later, policemen conducted an investigation. A
photographer called by the police took pictures of what
remained of the house.
• Damaged properties amount to P153,980
(house, clothing, corn, jewelries, carabao, pig
etc.)
o Witnesses:
• Albino himself identified the accused.
• Sister in law of Albino whose house was 30
meters away also saw Arbolante and the other
1
“SEC. 3. Other Cases of Arson.— The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall penalty in any case shall be imposed in its maximum period:
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following: xxx xxx xxx
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant
xxx xxx xxx
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling.
xxx xxx xxx
 of the property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate
2
“SEC. 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson.—The
accused when they broke into Albino’s house.
3. As to the defense, pure denial and alibi:
o Arbulante was at home when the incident happened.
They were neighbors. Only reason why Albino filed the
case was because he refused to protect him from
someone’s threat.
4. RTC found them guilty of arson under P.D. 16131. Applied two
aggravating circumstances2:
o Committed by syndicate
o Motivated by spite or hatred.
ISSUE & RATIO
• Defense pointed out a lot of inconsistencies in the testimonies
but then SC said such were only minor details which do not
affect the credibility of the witnesses.
o The Court gave more weight to the Prosec. Defense
failed to prove that it was impossible for them to be at
the scene for their alibi and denial to prosper.
• The accused are guilty of arson under section 3 of P.D. No.
1613.
o Elements: 1) Intentional burning 2) What is
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling.
§ Court said that there was clear and convincing
quantum of proof sufficient to convict the
accused.
• Pictures of the burnt house
• Prosec witnesses positively identifief the
accused
• The policemen who investigated
described the remains of the property
and estimated the actual damages.
§ Considering that it was committed by a
syndicated of more or less 70 people, there is
ample basis to infer the presence of conspiracy.


o As to the aggravating circumstances:
§ SC affirms that the aggravating circumstance of
syndicate armed with guns was duly proven.
§ But prosec failed to substantiate the aggravating
circumstance that the crime was motivated by
spite and hatred.
o As to the damages:
§ Court said that the right total is 153, 300 and not
153, 980/