Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Second Set of SPL Digests
Second Set of SPL Digests
G.R. No. 111426 portion of the lot beside the house and
July 11, 1994; J. Davide Jr. poked their guns to his driver and two
Facts: helpers and dragged them inside his house.
On or about and during the period from February That the men pointed a gun at him and was
12, to February 24, 1988, inclusive, in the City of made to lie face down on the floor. The other
Manila, Philippines, the said accused (Norma occupants, namely his wife, the maids and
Dizon-Pamintuan), with intent of gain for herself his driver were likewise made to lie on the
or for another, did then and there wilfully, floor. Thereafter, the robbers ransacked the
unlawfully and knowingly buy and keep in her house and took away jewelries and other
possession and/or sell or dispose of the personal properties including cash. After the
following jewelries, to wit: one (1) set of intruders left the house he reported the matter
earrings, a ring studded with diamonds in a immediately to the police. He was then
triangular style, one (1) set of earrings interviewed by the Parañaque police and was
(diamond studded) and one (1) diamond- informed that an operation group would be
studded crucifix, or all valued at P105,000.00, assigned to the case.
which she knew or should have known to have He likewise reported the matter to the Western
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of Police District on February 15, 1988. Two days
robbery committed by Joselito Sacdalan later, a group of WPD operatives came over to
Salinas against the owner Teodoro and his house and he was asked to prepare a list
Luzviminda Encarnacion. of items of jewelry and other valuables that
On the basis of the testimonies of were lost including a sketch of distinctive
prosecution witnesses Teodoro Encarnacion items. He was later told that some of the lost
(one of the offended parties), Cpl. Ignacio Jao, items were in Chinatown area as tipped by
Jr., and Pfc. Emmanuel Sanchez the informer the police had dispatched. That
an entrapment would be made with their
the trial court promulgated on 16 November participation, on February 14, 1988. As such,
1990 its decision, the dispositive portion of which they went to Camp Crame at around 9:00 a.m.
reads: and arrived at the vicinity of 733 Florentino
Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at about 10:00
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proved a.m.; that he is with his wife posed as a buyer
the guilty of the accused for violation of and were able to recognize items of the
Presidential Decree No. 1612 beyond jewelry stolen displayed at the stall being
reasonable doubt, the accused Norma Dizon- tended by Norma Dizon Pamintuan; the
Pamintuan is hereby sentenced to suffer an pieces were: 1 earring and ring studded with
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from diamonds worth P75,000 bought from
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of prision mayor to estimator Nancy Bacud (Exh. "C-2"), 1 set of
NINETEEN (19) YEARS of reclusion temporal. earring diamond worth P15,000 (Exh. "C-3")
and 1 gold chain with crucifix worth P3,000
No civil liability in view of the recovery of the The recovery of the pieces of jewelry, on the
items, subject-matter of this case.
basis of which the trial court ruled that no civil
liability should be adjudged against the
Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, petitioner, took place when, as testified to by
Department of Public Works and Highways Teodoro Encarnacion, the petitioner
testified that he has just arrived at his residence "admitted that she got the items but she did
located at Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque not know they were stolen [and that] she
at around 9:45 p.m. of February 12, 1988 surrendered the items and gave them to [his]
coming from the Airport and immediately wife."
proceeded inside the house, leaving behind his
driver and two housemaids outside to pick-
In convicting the petitioner, the trial court
up his personal belongings from his case. It
made the following findings:
was at this point that five unidentified masked
The prosecution was able to prove by have been established by positive and
evidence that the recovered items were part convincing evidence of the prosecution . . .
of the loot and such recovered items belong
to the spouses Encarnacion, the herein The fact that a crime of robbery has been
private complainants. That such items were committed on February 12, 1988 is
recovered by the Police Officers from the established by the testimony of private
stall being tended by the accused at that
complainant Teodoro T. Encarnacion who
time. Of importance, is that the law provides
immediately reported the same to Parañaque
a disputable presumption of fencing under
Section 5 thereof, to wit: Police Station of the Southern Police District
(TSN, Hearings of October 3, 1988, November
9, 1988 and January 11, 1989; Exh. A) and
Mere possession of any goods, article, item
submitted a list and sketches of the jewelries
object, or anything of value which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery shall robbed, among other things, from their
be prima facie evidence of fencing. residence located at Better Living
Subdivision, Parañaque, Metro Manila.
There is no doubt that the recovered items
were found in the possession of the accused The second element is likewise established by
and she was not able to rebut the convincing evidence. On February 24, 1988,
presumption though the evidence for the accused-appellant was found selling the
defense alleged that the stall is owned by jewelries (Exhs. C-2, C-3 and C-4) which was
one Fredo. A distinction should likewise be displayed in a showcase in a stall located at
made between ownership and possession in Florentino Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
relation to the act of fencing. Moreover, as to [Testimonies of Teodoro Encarnacion (id.
the value of the jewelries recovered, the supra); Cpl. Ignacio Jao (TSN, Hearing of
prosecution was able to show that the same February 13, 1989) and Pfc. Emmanuel
is Ninety Three Thousand Pesos Sanchez (TSN, Hearing of June 4, 1989)].
(P93,000.00).
On the element of knowledge that the items are
The Court of Appeals disposed of the first issue derived from the proceeds of the crime of
in this wise: robbery and of intent to gain for herself or for
another, the Anti-Fencing Law provides:
The guilt of accused-appellant was established
beyond reasonable doubt. All the elements of Sec. 5. Presumption of Fencing. — Mere
the crime of fencing in violation of the Anti- possession of any good, article, item, object, or
Fencing Law of 1979 (P.D. No. 1612), to wit: anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been of fencing.
committed;
Knowledge and intent to gain are proven by
2. A person, not a participant in said crime, the fact that these jewelries were found in
buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, possession of appellant and they were
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and displayed for sale in a showcase being
sells; or in any manner deals in any article or tended by her in a stall along Florentino
item, object or anything of value; Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.9
Q Can you still recall who Both the RTC and the CA failed to consider
informed you of the that the Affidavit of Ownership given by
taking of this unit by Petronilo Banosing to petitioner was a duly
one Petronilo Banosing? notarized document which, by virtue of its
notarization, enjoys a presumption of
A Yes, sir, it was my regularity.
driver because I [told]
him to visit once in a
while our area in Respondent argues that the presumption of
Nohralla. regularity of the notarized Affidavit of Ownership
had been overturned. We rule otherwise. As
pointed out by respondent, to overcome the
Sec. 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides presumption of regularity of notarized
that witnesses can testify only with regard to documents, it is necessary to contradict it with
facts of which they have personal knowledge; "evidence that is clear, convincing and more
otherwise, their testimonies would be than merely preponderant." Contrary to
inadmissible for being hearsay.20 Evidence is respondent's assertion, the ownership of the
hearsay when its probative force depends on the subject grader was not conclusively established
competency and credibility of some persons by the prosecution As earlier stated, Engr.
other than the witness by whom it is sought to be Gulmatico was unable to confirm its ownership
produced. The exclusion of hearsay evidence is in his testimony. Further, the Memorandum
anchored on three reasons: (1) absence of Receipt also failed to establish this. Despite the
cross-examination; (2) absence of demeanor many opportunities to submit additional proof of
evidence; and (3) absence of ownership, the prosecution failed to do so.
oath.21chanrobleslaw
It appears that both the RTC and the CA
Consequently, hearsay evidence, whether ruled that petitioner should have first
objected to or not, has no probative value unless secured a Clearance or a permit from the
it is shown that the evidence falls within any of police, in compliance with Sec. 6 of PD 1612.
the exceptions to the hearsay rule as provided in However, said provision is inapplicable to
the Rules of Court.22 However, none of the the present case.
exceptions applies to the present case.
Clearly, the clearance stated in Sec. 6 of PD
A cursory reading of Engr. Gulmatico's
1612 is only required if several conditions, are
testimony shows that his statements pertaining
met: first, that the person, store, establishment
to the alleged theft are all based on information
or entity is in the business of buying and selling
which he claims to have received from third
of any good, articles item object, or anything of
persons, all of whom were never presented to
value; second, that such thing of value was
testify under oath in court. Thus, it was
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier
erroneous for the trial court to give probative
thereof; and third, that such thing of value is to
value on Engr. Gulmatico's testimony
be offered for sale to the public.
considering that the truth and credibility of such
statements cannot be ascertained for being
In the present case, the first and third requisites
mere hearsay.
were not met. Nowhere was it established that
petitioner was engaged in the business of buy
Even assuming arguendo that theft had been
and sell. Neither was the prosecution able to
committed, the third element of fencing is
establish that petitioner intended to sell or was
wanting in this case.
actually selling the subject grader to the public.
2. The accused ran immediately when they saw Lagat and Palalay went36 to the Court of
the Alicia PNP approaching them; Appeals, asserting that their guilt was not
established beyond reasonable doubt.37 They
3. The Alicia PNP found bloodstains on the averred that circumstantial evidence, to be
tricycle and Biag’s wallet with documents to sufficient for a judgment of conviction, "must
prove that Biag owned the tricycle; exclude each and every hypothesis consistent
with innocence,"38 which was allegedly not the
4. The Alicia PNP contacted the PNP of case in their situation. They elaborated on why
Santiago City to inquire about a Jose Biag, and the circumstantial evidence the RTC
this was how the barangay officials of Santiago enumerated could not be taken against them:
City and Florida found out that Biag’s tricycle
was with the Alicia PNP; 1. The accused’s possession of the tricycle
cannot prove that they killed its owner;
5. Biag left early morning on April 12, 2005 and
never returned home; 2. Their act of fleeing may be due to the
stolen palay (which is not the subject of this
6. The accused themselves led the Alicia PNP case), and not the tricycle;
and Barangay Captain Dulay and Rumbaoa to
where they dumped Biag’s body.32 3. No evidence was given that would link the
bloodstains found in the tricycle to Biag himself.
The RTC convicted Lagat and Palalay of the They could have easily been Palalay’s, who was
crime of carnapping, qualified by the killing shown to have a knife wound; and
of Biag, which, according to the RTC,
appeared to have been done in the course of 4. The accused’s act of pointing to the police
the carnapping and the barangay officials the ravine where
Lagat and Palalay went36 to the Court of Biag’s body was dumped was part of their
Appeals, asserting that their guilt was not interrogation without counsel, which the RTC
established beyond reasonable doubt.37 They itself declared as inadmissible in evidence
averred that circumstantial evidence, to be
CA affirmed with modification as increasing of the thing which was taken without the owner’s
actual damages to Php 14,900. consent constitutes gain.50
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; (c) The combination of all the circumstances
results in a moral certainty that the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, is the one who has
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other committed the crime.
than the offender himself;
A careful and exhaustive examination of the
3. That the taking is without the consent of the evidence presented, excluding those that are
owner thereof; or that the taking was committed inadmissible, show that the circumstantial
by means of violence against or intimidation of evidence, when viewed as a whole, effectively
persons, or by using force upon things; and establishes the guilt of Lagat and Palalay
beyond reasonable doubt. We considered the
4. That the offender intends to gain from the following pieces of evidence as convincing:
taking of the vehicle.45
First, Lagat and Palalay were found in
The records of this case show that all the possession of the tricycle the same day that it,
elements of carnapping are present and were together with its owner Biag, was reported
proven during trial. missing.
Lagat and Palalay’s intent to gain from the Second, Lagat and Palalay were found at a
carnapped tricycle was also proven as they were palay buying station, with the stolen tricycle
caught in a palay buying station, on board the packed with cavans of palay allegedly stolen in
stolen tricycle, which they obviously used to Alicia, Isabela.
transport the cavans of palay they had stolen
and were going to sell at the station. In Third, Lagat and Palalay who were then on
Bustinera, we elucidated on the concept of board the tricycle, jumped and ran the moment
"intent to gain" and said: they saw the Alicia PNP approaching them.
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal Fourth, Lagat and Palalay could not explain to
act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the the Alicia PNP why they were in possession of
motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the Biag’s tricycle.
important consideration is the intent to gain. The
term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary
benefit but also includes the benefit which in any Fifth, Biag’s wallet and his tricycle’s registration
other sense may be derived or expected from papers were found in the tricycle upon its
the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use inspection by the Alicia PNP.
Sixth, Biag’s body bore hack wounds as Accused-appellant Enrile Donio y
evidenced by the post-mortem autopsy done on Untalan (Donia) was charged with violation of
him, while his tricycle had traces of blood in it. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539, otherwise known
as AntiCarnapping Act of 1972, as amended
The foregoing circumstantial evidence only leads by R.A. No. 7659. Co-accused Val
to the conclusion that Lagat and Palalay Paulino (Paulino) and one
conspired to kill Biag in order to steal his tricycle. @Ryan (Ryan), both remains at-large, were
Direct proof that the two accused conspired is similarly charged. The accusatory portion of
not essential as it may be inferred from their the Information reads:
conduct before, during, and after their
commission of the crime that they acted with a That on or about the 26th day of November
common purpose and design.54 The pieces of 2003, in the Municipality of Mabalacat, Province
evidence presented by the prosecution are of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
consistent with one another and the only rational jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
proposition that can be drawn therefrom is that named accused, conspiring, confederating
the accused are guilty of killing Biag to carnap together and mutually helping one another, with
his tricycle. intent of gain and without the knowledge and
consent of the owner, did then and there willfully,
When a person is killed or raped in the course of unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
or on the occasion of the carnapping, the crime away with them one (1) Honda TMX 155
of carnapping is qualified and the penalty is tricycle, colored black and with Body [No.]
increased pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act 817, valued at Ninety-Six Thousand
No. 6539, as amended: ([P.]96,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency,
and on the occasion thereof, Raul L. Layug,
Section 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person being the driver and owner of the said Honda
who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is TMX 155 tricycle, was killed with the use of a
defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, mini jungle bolo.
irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken,
be punished by imprisonment for not less than At his arraignment, Donio, assisted by his
fourteen years and eight months and not more counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the
than seventeen years and four months, when offense charged
the carnapping is committed without violence or
intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and Six police officers of the Concepcion Police
by imprisonment for not less than seventeen Station, Tarlac City, headed by SP04
years and four months and not more than thirty Leodegario Taberdo (SP04 Taberdo ),
years, when the carnapping is committed by conducted a checkpoint along the junction of
means of violence against or intimidation of any MacArthur Highway in relation to the
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of campaign of the Philippine National Police
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed against hijacking, camapping, and
when the owner, driver or occupant of the kidnapping, hailing cargo trucks and closed
carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the vans, and issuing cards to southbound
course of the commission of the carnapping or vehicles.5
on the occasion thereof. (As amended by R.A.
No. 7659.) (Emphasis ours)
At 2:30 in the morning on November 26, 2003, a
speeding tricycle abruptly stopped a few
As there was no aggravating circumstance meters from the checkpoint and caught the
attendant in the commission of the crime, the attention of the police officers. SP04 Taberdo
RTC properly imposed the penalty of reclusion and two others approached the vehicle. The
perpetua. driver, later identified as Donio, was
noticeably agitated while repeatedly kicking
People v Enrile Donio the starter of the tricycle. When asked for his
G.R. No. 212815 identity, he introduced himself as Raul
March 1, 2017; J. Peralta Layug (Raul) and then handed to SP04
Taberdo a temporary license bearing the said
Facts: name. The police officers asked the driver and
his companions, co-accused Paulino and Ryan, The trial court ruled that the prosecution
to bring the vehicle, a Honda TMX 155 established all the elements of the crime. Donio
tricycle with Body No. 817, to the checkpoint failed to substantiate his presence at another
when they failed to produce its certificate of place at the time of the perpetration of the
registration and the official receipt.6 offense or the physical impossibility of his
presence at the locus criminis or its immediate
Upon visual search of the vehicle, they vicinity at the time of the incident. 12 Under the
discovered a bloodstained mini jungle bolo Rules, SP04 Taberdo's action as police officer
inside. They seized the tricycle and the bolo, enjoys the presumption of regularity. In the
and then brought the three to the police absence of evidence showing that he was
station. At 9 o'clock in the morning, Donio motivated by bad faith or ill-will to testify against
asked permission to leave in order to get the Donio, SP04 Taberdo's categorical identification
registration papers. The officers allowed him, of the accused stands.13
however, he did not return
In a Decision dated November 4, 2013, the CA
Meanwhile, around 6:30 in morning of the same denied Donio's appeal and affirmed the decision
date, Rodrigo Layug (Rodrigo) was searching of the RTC. The CA found his averment that he
for his brother Raul, the victim, who has not was taken from his house, tortured and made to
returned home since last night. Raul was the sign a blank sheet of paper as highly
driver of Rodrigo's Honda TMX 155 tricycle with implausible. His sworn affidavit was replete with
Body No. 817. Rodrigo met with his tricycle details which were unlikely the product of
driver cousin from Mawaque to ask him if he saw creative imagination of the police. There was no
his brother. His cousin accompanied him to proof that the police singled him out, or was
Barangay Madapdap where they found the impelled by an evil or ulterior motive. The said
remains of Raul. Words spread about his affidavit was voluntarily and freely executed with
death. Thereafter, a tricycle driver informed the assistance of counsel
them that he saw a vehicle similar to
Rodrigo's at the Concepcion Police Station. Issue: Whether the prosecution has successfully
Rodolfo, Raul and Rodrigo's other brother, proven beyond reasonable doubt that Donio is
went to the station where he learned that guilty of the crime of carnapping with homicide.
Paulino and Ryan were released.8
Held:
Defense's sole witness, Donio, a 35-year-old
grass cutter and a resident of Madapdap, Yes.
Mabalacat, Pampanga, denied the accusations.
As a sugarcane plantation worker, he has a long At the outset, the CA noted that the prosecution
palang for harvesting and cutting. It was not should have filed an Information for the special
similar to the sharp and pointed mini jungle bolo. complex crime of qualified carnapping in
As a stay-in plantation worker, he does not leave aggravated form.19 while it is necessary that the
the workplace for six months. His wife visits him statutory designation be stated in the
instead. information, a mistake in the caption of an
indictment in designating the correct name of the
On November 24, 2003, he was harvesting offense is not a fatal defect as it is not the
sugarcane in Capas, Tarlac. However, from the designation that is controlling but the facts
evening of November 25, 2003 until the next alleged in the information which determines the
day, he was at home after his wife fetched him real nature of the crime.20 Recently, it was held
to tend to their sick child. He first learned of the that failure to designate the offense by the
carnapping charge when the police officers statute or to mention the specific provision
came to his house looking for a certain Val penalizing the act, or an erroneous
Paulino. He was taken to the municipal hall specification of the law violated, does not
where he was investigated and detained for five vitiate the information if the facts alleged
days. Three officers beat and electrocuted him therein clearly recite the facts constituting
for three hours forcing him to admit the crime. the crime charged.21 The recital of the ultimate
facts and circumstances in the complaint or
information determines the character of the
crime and not the caption or preamble of the Highway by elements of the Concepcion Police
information or the specification of the provision Station at around 2:30 in the morning on
of the law alleged to have been violated.22 In the November 26, 2003;
case at bar, the acts alleged to have been
committed by Donio are averred in the Second, his possession of the vehicle was not
Information, and the same described the acts fully explained as he failed to produce its
defined and penalized under Sections 2 and 14 registration papers;
of R.A. 6539, as amended.
Third, he was in possession of the victim's
The elements of carnapping as defined and temporary license. He even presented it and
penalized under the R.A. No. 6539, as introduced himself as Raul to the police;
amended are the following:
Fourth, a bloodstained mini jungle bolo was
1. That there is an actual taking of the found inside the tricycle;
vehicle;
Fifth, Rodrigo ascertained that Raul was the
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other driver of his tricycle, and that he was looking for
than the offender himself; him on the same day that Donio and the others
were flagged down;
3. That the taking is without the consent of
the owner thereof; or that the taking was Sixth, Raul was last seen driving the tricycle at
committed by means of violence against or 10:00 in the evening on November 25, 2003
intimidation of persons, or by using force when he passed by at the Mawaque Terminal at
upon things; and the comer of MacArthur Highway and Mawaque
Road.34
4. That the offender intends to gain from the
taking of the vehicle Seventh, the Bantay Bayan of Madapdap
Resettlement found Raul's body at around 6:30
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. in the morning on November 26, 2003 at a
6539, as amended, the prosecution has to prove vacant lot towards the road to Sta. Lucia
the essential requisites of carnapping and of the Resettlement comer Barangay Dapdap.
homicide or murder of the victim, and more
importantly, it must show that the original Eighth, Raul sustained multiple stab wounds
criminal design of the culprit was camapping and caused by a sharp instrument as depicted in the
that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of post-mortem examination sketch by Dr. Dizon
the commission of the carnapping or on the and reflected in the Certificate of Death, which
occasion thereof "24 In other words, to prove the states:
special complex crime of camapping with
homicide, there must be proof not only of the Ninth, Donio was subsequently apprehended
essential elements of carnapping, but also that it and SP04 Taberdo positively identified him as
was the original criminal design of the culprit and the driver they flagged down at the checkpoint. 36
the killing was perpetrated in the course of the
commission of the camapping or on the
occasion thereof Likewise, the victim's lifeless body was found
sprawled with multiple stab wounds and was
noted in a state of rigor mortis. Rigor
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court mortis, which consists in the stiffening of the
finds that the confluence of the following pieces muscular tissues and joints of the body setting in
of circumstantial evidence, consistent with one at a greater or less interval after death, may be
another, establishes Donio's guilt beyond utilized to approximate the length of time the
reasonable doubt: body has been dead. In temperate countries, it
usually appears three to six hours after death
First, Donio was driving the tricycle when he, but in warmer countries, it may develop earlier.
Paulino and Ryan were accosted during a In tropical countries, the usual duration of rigor
checkpoint at the junction of the MacArthur mortis is twenty-four to forty-eight hours during
cold weather and eighteen to thirty-six hours threat to burn his house, and maintained that he
during summer. When rigor mortis sets in early, did not own a gun. He added that the gunshots
it passes off quickly and viceversa heard by his neighbors came from the explosion
of firecrackers that he intended to use during the
The RTC is correct in imposing the penalty New Year celebration.14
of reclusion perpetua considering that there was
no alleged and proven aggravating Lomantong Panandigan, the appellant’s
circumstance. cousin, stated, among others, that he did not
see the appellant carry a revolver or fire a
People v Macabando shot on December 21, 2001.15 Dimas
G.R. No. 188708 Kasubidan, the appellant’s brother-in-law, stated
July 31, 2013; J. Brion that he and the appellant lived in the same
Facts: house, and that the latter was asleep in his room
The prosecution's evidence showed that at at the ground floor before the fire broke out. 16
around 4:00 p.m. on December 21, 2001, the
appellant broke bottles on the road while holding The prosecution charged the appellant with the
a G.I. pipe, and shouted that he wanted to get crime of destructive arson under Article 320 of
even ("manabla ko").3 Afterwards, he uttered the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
that he would burn his house. before the RTC.17 The appellant pleaded not
At 6:35 p.m. of the same day, Cornelio Feliciano guilty to the charge on arraignment. 18 In its
heard his neighbors shout that there was a fire. judgment dated August 26, 2002, the RTC found
When Cornelio went out of his house to verify, the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
he saw smoke coming from the appellant’s the crime charged, and sentenced him to suffer
house. He got a pail of water, and poured its the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
contents into the fire.5 Eric Quilantang, a
neighbor whose house was just 10 meters from On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment in
that of the appellant, ran to the barangay toto.
headquarters to get a fire extinguisher. When
Eric approached the burning house, the Held:
appellant, who was carrying a traveling bag and We deny the appeal, but modify the crime
a gun, told him not to interfere; the appellant committed by the appellant and the penalty
then fired three (3) shots in the air.6 The imposed on him.
appellant also told the people around that
whoever would put out the fire would be killed.
We point out at the outset that no one saw the
Fire Officer (FO) II Victor Naive and FOI
appellant set fire to his house in Barangay 35,
Reynaldo Maliao conducted a spot Limketkai Drive, Cagayan de Oro City. The trial
investigation of the incident, and concluded, and appellate courts thus resorted to
among others, that the fire started in the circumstantial evidence since there was no
appellant’s house; and that it had been direct evidence to prove the appellant’s
intentional.10 Barangay Chairman Modesto culpability to the crime charged.
Ligtas stated that the fire gutted many
houses in his barangay, and that he assisted
the City Social Welfare and Development It is settled that in the absence of direct
Department personnel in assessing the evidence, circumstantial evidence may be
damage sufficient to sustain a conviction provided that:
The appellant declared on the witness stand that "(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
he lived in the twostorey house in Barangay 35, facts from which the inferences are derived have
Limketkai Drive, which was owned by his sister, been proven; and (c) the combination of all the
Madji Muslima Edemal.12 He admitted that he felt circumstances results in a moral certainty that
angry at around 2:00 p.m. on December 21, the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the
2001 because one of his radio cassettes for sale one who has committed the crime. Thus, to
had been stolen.13 The appellant claimed that he justify a conviction based on circumstantial
went to sleep after looking for his missing evidence, the combination of circumstances
radio cassette, and that the fire had already must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no
started when he woke up. He denied making a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused."
In the present case, the following circumstances 3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well
constitute an unbroken chain that leads to an or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
unavoidable conclusion that the appellant, to the
exclusion of others, set fire to his house: first, 4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing
the appellant, while holding an iron lead pipe, crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or
acted violently and broke bottles near his house forest;
at around 4:00 p.m. of December 21, 2001;
second, while he was still in a fit of rage, the 5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
appellant stated that he would get even, and central; and
then threatened to burn his own house; third,
Judith Quilantang saw a fire in the appellant’s
room approximately two hours after the 6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
appellant returned to his house; fourth, the warehouse. [italics and emphasis ours]
appellant prevented Cornelio, Eric, and several
other people from putting out the fire in his P.D. No. 1613 contemplates the malicious
house; fifth, the appellant fired shots in the air, burning of public and private structures,
and then threatened to kill anyone who would try regardless of size, not included in Article 320 of
to put out the fire in his house; sixth, the the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No.
appellant carried a traveling bag during the fire; 7659.22 This law punishes simple arson with a
and finally, the investigation conducted by the lesser penalty because the acts that constitute it
fire marshals of the Bureau of Fire Protection have a lesser degree of perversity and
revealed that the fire started in the appellant’s viciousness. Simple arson contemplates crimes
house, and that it had been intentional. with less significant social, economic, political,
and national security implications than
The combination of these circumstances, destructive arson.23
indeed, leads to no other conclusion than that
the appellant set fire to his house. We find it The elements of simple arson under Section 3(2)
unnatural and highly unusual for the appellant to of P.D. No. 1613 are: (a) there is intentional
prevent his neighbors from putting out the fire in burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is
his house, and threaten to kill them if they did, if an inhabited house or dwelling. Both these
he had nothing to do with the crime. elements have been proven in the present case.
The Information alleged that the appellant set
In sum, "Article 320 contemplates the malicious fire to his own house, and that the fire spread to
burning of structures, both public and private, other inhabited houses. These allegations were
hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, established during trial through the testimonies
aircraft, factories and other military, government of the prosecution witnesses which the trial and
or commercial establishments by any person or appellate courts found credible and convincing,
group of persons."20 and through the report of the Bureau of Fire
Protection which stated that damaged houses
were residential, and that the fire had been
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1613,21 on the intentional. Moreover, the certification from the
other hand, currently governs simple arson. City Social Welfare and Development
Section 3 of this law provides: Department likewise indicated that the burned
houses were used as dwellings. The appellant
Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of likewise testified that his burnt two-story house
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall was used as a residence. That the appellant’s
be imposed if the property burned is any of the act affected many families will not convert the
following: crime to destructive arson, since the appellant’s
act does not appear to be heinous or represents
1. Any building used as offices of the a greater degree of perversity and viciousness
government or any of its agencies; when compared to those acts punished under
Article 320 of the RPC. The established
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling; evidence only showed that the appellant
intended to burn his own house, but the
conflagration spread to the neighboring houses.
The nature of Destructive Arson is under Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No.
distinguished from Simple Arson by the 1613; and
degree of perversity or viciousness of the
criminal offender. The acts committed under (2) he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code penalty often (10) years and one (1) day of
constituting Destructive Arson are prision mayor, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years
characterized as heinous crimes "for being and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and maximum.
which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity People v De Leon
and perversity are repugnant and outrageous G.R. No. 180762
to the common standards and norms of March 4, 2009; J. Ynares-Santiago
decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society." On the other hand, acts
committed under PD 1613 constituting Facts:
Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree
of perversity and viciousness that the law An Information3 was filed charging Gaudencio
punishes with a lesser penalty. In other Legaspi, Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio
words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon with the crime of
with less significant social, economic, arson. The accusatory portion of the Information
political and national security implications reads:
than Destructive Arson.
That on or about the 5th day of April, 1986, in
The Proper Penalty the Municipality of Peñaranda, Province of
Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the
Under Section 3, paragraph 2, of P.D. No. 1613, jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
the imposable penalty for simple arson is named accused, conspiring and confederating
reclusion temporal, which has a range of twelve together and mutually aiding and helping one
(12) years and one (1) day, to reclusion another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence and feloniously burn or set on fire the house of
Law, the penalty imposable should be an one RAFAEL MERCADO, an inhabited house or
indeterminate penalty whose minimum term dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of said
should be within the range of the penalty next Rafael Mercado in an amount that may be
lower in degree, which is prision mayor, or six awarded to him under the Civil Code of the
(6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, Philippines.
and whose maximum should be the medium
period of reclusion temporal to reclusion At around 8:30 in the evening of April 5, 1986,
perpetua, or sixteen (16) years and one (1) day Aquilina Mercado Rint (Aquilina) and her sister
to twenty (20) years, taking into account the Leonisa Mercado (Leonisa), together with their
absence of any aggravating or mitigating nephew Narciso Mercado Jr., (Junior) were
circumstances that attended the commission of inside a hut owned by their father Rafael
the crime. Taking these rules into account, we Mercado10 (Rafael) located on a tumana in
therefore impose on the appellant the Polillo, San Josef, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. The
indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one loud and insistent barking of their dog prompted
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to sixteen Aquilina to peep through the window and saw
(16) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, five men approaching the premises whom she
as maximum. recognized as Gaudencio Legaspi and herein
appellants. Aquilina and Leonisa hurriedly went
WHEREFORE, the assailed February 24, 2009 out of the hut and hid behind a pile of wood
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR nearby while Junior was dispatched to call for
HC No. 00208-MIN is AFFIRMED with the help.
following MODIFICATIONS:
From their hiding place, they saw appellants
(1) appellant Alamada Macabando is found surround the hut11 and set to fire the cogon
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple arson roofing.12 While the hut was burning, Leonisa
grabbed a flashlight from her sister and focused Rafael before the Municipal Trial Court of
the same at the group in order to see them more Peñaranda
clearly. Upon seeing a light focused on them,
Gaudencio ordered the others to leave and the Nelio testified that on the day of the incident, the
men immediately fled the premises.13 By the appellants were in their respective homes and
time Junior arrived with his uncles, the hut was could not have gone to the tumana to commit
already razed to the ground. the crime as charged; that the burnt parts
depicted in the pictures presented by the
Police Officer Lucio Mercado (Lucio) conducted prosecution were actually parts of tree trunks
an investigation at the scene of the crime and turned to charcoal; and that the cogon and
saw a big wood still on fire. A certain Julio took bamboo shown in the pictures were materials
pictures of the remains of the hut.14 brought by Rafael into the landholding during the
latter’s unsuccessful attempt to build a hut on
Aquilina and Leonisa valued the hut at the tumana.19
P3,000.00 and claimed that a pair of earrings,
some beddings, rice, P1,500.00 in cash and Bien also vehemently denied the charges
plenty of wood were also lost in the fire. 15 They against him and attributed the same to
also testified that prior to the incident, complainants’ desire to grab the tumana which
appellants had been to the premises, rightfully belongs to his mother. He testified that
destroyed the plants, the fence and a hut since 1982, he has been living in Rizal, Nueva
which was first built therein. Appellants Ecija which is about 35 kilometers away from
likewise physically attacked their father and Peñaranda.20 For his part, Filoteo corroborated
issued threats that if he would not give up the claims made by his co-appellants.21
his claim on the land, something untoward
would happen to him; and that their father , the trial court rendered its decision, thus:
Rafael filed several cases for Malicious
Mischief, Forcible Entry and Serious Physical
In the light of the foregoing, the prosecution had
Injuries against appellants.
established the guilt of all the accused
Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio "aka"
Appellants denied the charge against them. Nelio Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of arson, and
Carlito alleged that on the day of the alleged they are hereby sentenced to an
incident, he was working in Cavite where he had indeterminate prison term of 10 years and 1
been staying for a year with his family; that his day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14
uncle Gaudencio was originally in possession of years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
the tumana contrary to Rafael’s claims; that his as maximum, and to pay jointly and severally
uncle used to plant vegetables and make the heirs of Rafael Mercado the sum of
charcoal therein until 1975 when he took over P3,000.00 representing the value of the
upon the latter’s request; and that when burned hut.
Gaudencio passed away in 1987, he applied for
a patent over the tumana with the Bureau of CA Affirmed
Lands.16
Held:
Carlito also alleged that there was actually no
structure on the premises because Rafael’s Section 3 of Presidential Decree No.
attempt to build a hut was foiled by his helper, 161324 amending the law on arson provides:
herein appellant Nelio.17 On cross-examination
however, he admitted that on March 12, 1986,
he destroyed the first hut constructed by Rafael Sec. 3. Other Cases of Arson. – The penalty of
on the subject tumana when the prosecution reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be
confronted him with evidence which showed that imposed if the property burned is any of the
he was found guilty of Malicious Mischief in following:
Criminal Case No. 1985 filed against him by
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
Section 4 of the same law provides that if the enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial
crime of arson was committed by a syndicate, courts have the advantage of observing the
i.e., if it is planned or carried out by a group of demeanor of witnesses as they testify. Only the
three or more persons, the penalty shall be trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush
imposed in its maximum period. of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or
sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or
Under the following provision, the elements full realization of an oath — all of which are
of arson are: (a) there is intentional burning; useful aids for an accurate determination of a
and, (b) what is intentionally burned is an witness’ honesty and sincerity.31 Proof of
inhabited house or dwelling. The appellate the corpus delicti is indispensable in the
court correctly found that the prosecution prosecution of arson, as in all kinds of criminal
was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt offenses. Corpus delicti means the substance of
the presence of the two essential elements of the crime; it is the fact that a crime has actually
the offense. been committed. In arson, the corpus delicti is
generally satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred remains
Although intent may be an ingredient of the
of a house burned down and of its having been
crime of arson, it may be inferred from the acts
intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated
of the accused. There is a presumption that one
testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may
intends the natural consequences of his act; and
be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to
when it is shown that one has deliberately set
warrant conviction.32 The corpus delicti has been
fire to a building, the prosecution is not bound to
satisfactorily proven in the instant case.
produce further evidence of his wrongful
intent.25 If there is an eyewitness to the crime of
arson, he can give in detail the acts of the The appellate court correctly imposed the
accused. When this is done the only substantial penalty in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion
issue is the credibility of the witness.26 perpetua considering the presence of the
special aggravating circumstance. The crime
was committed by a syndicate since it was
In the instant case, both the trial court and the
carried out by a group of three or more
Court of Appeals, found the testimonies of
persons.
witnesses Aquilina and Leonisa worthy of
credence, thus: