PEOPLE OF
THE
Appellee,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
-
versus - Carpio,*
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Peralta, JJ.
CARLITO DE LEON, BIEN DE
LEON, CORNELIO “AKA”
NELIO Promulgated:
CABILDO and FILOTEO DE
LEON,
Appellants. March 4, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated May 21, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 26390 which affirmed
with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Nueva Ecija,
Branch 35[2]
finding herein appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of arson
and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the private complainant
P2,000.00 as temperate damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
On June 14, 1989, an
Information[3]
was filed charging Gaudencio Legaspi, Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio
Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon with the crime of arson. The accusatory portion of the Information
reads:
That
on or about the 5th day of April, 1986, in the Municipality of Peñaranda,
Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually aiding and helping one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously burn or set on fire the house of one RAFAEL MERCADO,
an inhabited house or dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of said Rafael
Mercado in an amount that may be awarded to him under the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[4]
Gaudencio Legaspi died
on February 5, 1987 prior to his arraignment.[5]
Appellants Bien de Leon,[6]
Carlito de Leon,[7]
Filoteo de Leon[8]
and Nelio Cabildo[9]
were subsequently arraigned and they all pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The facts of the case
are as follows:
At around 8:30 in the
evening of April 5, 1986, Aquilina Mercado Rint (Aquilina) and her sister
Leonisa Mercado (Leonisa), together with their nephew Narciso Mercado Jr.,
(Junior) were inside a hut owned by their father Rafael Mercado[10]
(Rafael) located on a tumana in Polillo, San Josef, Peñaranda, Nueva
Ecija. The loud and insistent barking of
their dog prompted Aquilina to peep through the window and saw five men
approaching the premises whom she recognized as Gaudencio Legaspi and herein
appellants. Aquilina and Leonisa
hurriedly went out of the hut and hid behind a pile of wood nearby while Junior
was dispatched to call for help.
From their hiding place,
they saw appellants surround the hut[11]
and set to fire the cogon roofing.[12]
While the hut was burning, Leonisa grabbed
a flashlight from her sister and focused the same at the group in order to see
them more clearly. Upon seeing a light focused
on them, Gaudencio ordered the others to leave and the men immediately fled the
premises.[13] By the time Junior arrived with his uncles,
the hut was already razed to the ground.
On April 6, 1986, Police
Officer Lucio Mercado (Lucio) conducted an investigation at the scene of the
crime and saw a big wood still on fire. A certain Julio took pictures of the remains
of the hut.[14]
Aquilina and Leonisa
valued the hut at P3,000.00 and claimed that a pair of earrings, some beddings,
rice, P1,500.00 in cash and plenty of wood were also lost in the fire.[15]
They also testified that prior to the
incident, appellants had been to the premises, destroyed the plants, the fence
and a hut which was first built therein.
Appellants likewise physically attacked their father and issued threats that
if he would not give up his claim on the land, something untoward would happen
to him; and that their father Rafael filed several cases for Malicious
Mischief, Forcible Entry and Serious Physical Injuries against appellants.
Appellants denied the
charge against them.
Carlito alleged that on
the day of the alleged incident, he was working in Cavite where he had been
staying for a year with his family; that his uncle Gaudencio was originally in
possession of the tumana contrary to Rafael’s claims; that his uncle
used to plant vegetables and make charcoal therein until 1975 when he took over
upon the latter’s request; and that when Gaudencio passed away in 1987, he
applied for a patent over the tumana with the Bureau of Lands.[16]
Carlito also alleged
that there was actually no structure on the premises because Rafael’s attempt
to build a hut was foiled by his helper, herein appellant Nelio.[17]
On cross-examination however, he admitted
that on March 12, 1986, he destroyed the first hut constructed by Rafael on the
subject tumana when the prosecution confronted him with evidence which
showed that he was found guilty of Malicious Mischief in Criminal Case No. 1985
filed against him by Rafael before the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda.[18]
Nelio testified that on
the day of the incident, the appellants were in their respective homes and
could not have gone to the tumana to commit the crime as charged; that
the burnt parts depicted in the pictures presented by the prosecution were
actually parts of tree trunks turned to charcoal; and that the cogon and bamboo
shown in the pictures were materials brought by Rafael into the landholding during
the latter’s unsuccessful attempt to build a hut on the tumana.[19]
Bien also vehemently
denied the charges against him and attributed the same to complainants’ desire
to grab the tumana which rightfully belongs to his mother. He testified that since 1982, he has been living
in Rizal, Nueva Ecija which is about 35 kilometers away from Peñaranda.[20]
For his part, Filoteo corroborated the
claims made by his co-appellants.[21]
On December 14, 2001,
the trial court rendered its decision, thus:
In
the light of the foregoing, the prosecution had established the guilt of all
the accused Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio “aka” Nelio Cabildo and
Filoteo de Leon beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of arson, and they are
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 10 years and 1 day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Rafael Mercado the
sum of P3,000.00 representing the value of the burned hut.
SO
ORDERED.[22]
Appellants appealed
before the Court of Appeals which rendered the herein assailed Decision
affirming with modification the decision of the court a quo, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of private complainant Rafael Mercado the sum of Php2,000 as temperate damages and Php20,000 as exemplary damages. Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Hence, this appeal.
Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613[24]
amending the law on arson provides:
Sec. 3. Other Cases of Arson. – The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
1. x x x
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
x x x x
Section 4 of the same law provides that if the crime of arson
was committed by a syndicate, i.e.,
if it is planned or carried out by a group of three or more persons, the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Under
the following provision, the elements of arson are: (a) there is intentional
burning; and, (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. The appellate court correctly
found that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
presence of the two essential elements of the offense.
Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of arson, it may be inferred from
the acts of the accused. There is a
presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his act; and when it
is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is
not bound to 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 accused. When this is done the
only substantial issue is the credibility of the witness.[26]
In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
found the testimonies of witnesses Aquilina and Leonisa worthy of credence,
thus:
The inconsistencies and contradictions presented in the case at bench do not detract from the fact that Rafael’s house was intentionally burned by accused-appellants who were positively identified by witnesses Aquilina and Leonisa. In the face of these positive declarations, accused-appellants’ puerile attempt to discredit them crumples into dust. [27]
It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have
affected the result of the case. Having
seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner
of testifying, the trial judge was in a better position to determine their
credibility.[28]
The testimony of Aquilina that she witnessed the burning of her
father’s hut by appellants is positive and categorical, thus:
ATTY. BAUTO:
Q. Where were you when according to you they burned the house of your father? that house where you were residing?
A. I was in the tumana, sir.
Q. In the house or outside the house?
A. Outside of the house, sir.
Q. Why were you outside of the house?
A. When they were arriving or entering the premises of the house of my father or the tumana, our dog barked and we peeped thru the window, sir.
Q. What did you see?
A. We saw that men are coming, sir.
Q. How many men are coming?
A. Five men, sir.
Q. Were you able to recognize them when they were approaching the house?
A. Yes sir we recognize them.
Q. What did you do?
A. We went outside of the house, sir.
Q. Where did you go?
A. We hid ourselves behind the files (sic) of wood, sir.
Q. How far is that file (sic) of wood from the house of your father?
A. More or less seven meters, sir.
Q. Why did you, in the first place, go out of the house when you saw them coming?
A. Because we wanted to hide, sir.
Q. Why were you apprehensive?
A. Because they
were our adversary, sir. (Kalaban
po namin sila.)
x x x x
Q. Who were with you when you went out of the house?
A. Only my sister Leonisa because I already instructed my nephew to go to our house when we noticed them coming and I instructed him to fetch my brothers, sir.
Q. When you were already behind the files (sic) of wood what happened next?
A. They
surrounded our house and they lighted it up with match, sir. (Pinaikutan po nila ang aming bahay at
sinilaban.)
Q. Who first lighted a match for purposes of burning the house?
A. Gaudencio Legaspi, sir.
Q. And what did the others do after Gaudencio Legaspi lighted a match?
A. They also lighted their matches, sir.
COURT:
Q. You mean the five had their matches at the time?
A. Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q. What portion of the house was lighted first?
A. The cogon roofing of the hut, sir. That was the portion that could be easily burned.[29]
Positive
identification, where categorical and consistent, without any showing of
ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails
over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. The appellants had not shown that it was
physically impossible for them to be present at the time and place of the
crime.[30]
Thus,
we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. Findings and
conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a
badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor
of witnesses as they testify. Only the
trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame,
hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full
realization of an oath — all of which are useful aids for an accurate
determination of a witness’ honesty and sincerity.[31]
Proof of the corpus delicti is indispensable in the
prosecution of arson, as in all kinds of criminal offenses. Corpus delicti means the substance of
the crime; it is the fact that a crime has actually been committed. In arson, the corpus delicti is
generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire, e.g.,
the charred remains of a house burned down and of its having been intentionally
caused. Even the uncorroborated
testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus
delicti and to warrant conviction.[32] The corpus
delicti has been satisfactorily proven in the instant case.
The
appellate court correctly imposed the penalty in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua considering the presence of the special aggravating
circumstance. The crime was committed by
a syndicate since it was carried out by a group of three or more persons.
On
the matter of damages, the appellate court likewise correctly awarded temperate
damages in the amount of P2,000.00. In
view of the presence of the special aggravating circumstance, exemplary damages
in the amount of P20,000.00 is likewise appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 26390, finding appellants Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio
Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of arson, sentencing them to suffer the
penalty reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay the heirs of private
complainant Rafael Mercado P2,000.00 as temperate damages and P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages, is AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* In lieu of Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, per Special Order No. 568 dated February 12, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 51-55; penned by Judge Dorentino Z. Floresta.
[3] Records, p. 71.
[4]
[5]
[6] Arraigned on April 19, 1990; see records, p. 136.
[7] Arraigned on May 9, 1990; see records, p. 140.
[8]
[9] Arraigned on July 10, 1990; see records, p. 162.
[10] Died on February 23, 1988; Certification dated January 22, 1990 from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. Records, p. 117.
[11] TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 4.
[12] TSN, May 4, 1993, p. 9; TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 5.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] TSN, August 22, 1995, pp. 4-5.
[17]
[18] Records, p. 54.
[19] TSN, October 24, 1995, pp. 5-6.
[20] TSN, March 26, 1996, pp. 2-3; 5.
[21]
[22] CA rollo, p. 55.
[23] Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[24] March 7, 1979.
[25] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, 407 SCRA 367, 373, citing Curtis, A Treaty on the Law of Arson (1st ed., 1986), Sec. 283, p. 303.
[26]
[27] Rollo, p. 16.
[28] People v. Clidoro, G.R. No. 143004, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 149, 154.
[29] TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 7-9.
[30] People v. Dela Pena, Jr., G.R. No. 183567, January 19, 2009.
[31]
[32] People v. Gonzalez, G.R. No.
180448, July 28, 2008.