Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
September
PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES ,
Appellee,
G. R. No. 170470
Present:
Promulgated:
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-N AZ ARIO, J .:
The Case
is
Manila,
Branch
the
41,
in
Regional
Criminal
with
Trial
Case
modification
Court
No.
(RTC)
of
01-188424
revie w
the Judgment [ 2 ] of
affirming
- versus -
For
2005,
the Decision
[1]
of
the
Court
of
Th irt y
m in u te s
la te r,
at
aro un d 5 :1 5
a .m . Ba ra n ga y Ch a irma n Be rn a rd o s gro up la te r
d isco ve re d t ha t a f ire gu t te d t he h ou se of t he
e mp lo ye r of t he ho usem a id . Ba ra n ga y Cha irm a n
B e rn a rd o a nd h is t an od s re spo nd e d t o t he f ire
u po n h ea rin g sh ou t s f rom th e re sid en t s an d
t he re af t e r, f ire me n f ro m t he Fire Dist rict 1 -NCR
a rri ve d at th e f ire scen e to co n ta in th e f ire .
W hen
B a ra n ga y
Cha irm an
B e rn a rdo
re t u rn e d t o t he B a ra n ga y Ha ll, he re ce i ved a
re po rt f ro m p ed icab d rive r Ro la n do G rut a , wh o
wa s a lso a t an od , th at sho rt l y b ef o re th e
o ccu r ren ce of th e f ire , he sa w a wo ma n (t h e
h ou sem a id ) co m in g ou t of t he h ou se a t No . 17 2
Mo de rn a S t re e t , Ba lu t, Tond o , Ma n ila an d he
re ce ive d a ca ll f rom h is wif e te llin g h im of a
wo m a n (th e sam e h ou se ma id ) wh o wa s a ct in g
st ra n ge ly a nd su sp icio u sl y on Ba la san S t ree t .
B a ra n ga y Cha irm a n B e rn a rd o, Ro lan do G ru ta an d
t he o th e r ta no d s p ro ce ed ed to B a la sa n St re et a nd
f o un d t he wo ma n wh o wa s la te r id en t if ie d a s th e
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t. Af te r Ro la nd o G ru ta p o sit ive l y
id en t if ied th e wo m an a s t he sam e p e rso n wh o le f t
No . 17 2 Mo de rn a S t ree t , Ba lut , Ton do , Man ila ,
B a ra n ga y Ch a irma n B e rn a rd o an d h is ta no d s
a pp re he nd ed he r a nd b ro u ght he r t o t he B a ra n ga y
Ha ll f o r in ve st iga t ion . At th e Ba ra n ga y Ha ll,
Me rce d ita Me nd o za , ne igh b o r of Rob e rto S ep a ra ,
S r. an d wh o se ho u se wa s a lso b u rn ed , id en t if ied
t he wo m an a s a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t E DNA wh o wa s
t he ho u se ma id of Rob e rt o S ep a ra, S r. Up on
in spe ct ion , a d ispo sab le ligh t e r wa s f ou nd in sid e
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t
E DNA s
b a g.
The reaf te r,
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t E DNA co nf e ssed to B a ra n ga y
Ch a irma n Be rna rd o in t he p re se n ce of mu lt it ud e s
of a n gry re sid en t s ou t sid e th e B a ran ga y Ha ll t ha t
she se t h e r em plo ye rs ho use on f ire b eca u se she
h ad no t b ee n pa id h e r sa la ry f o r a bo u t a ye a r an d
t ha t she wa n te d t o go h om e t o h e r p ro vin ce bu t
h e r e mp lo ye r to ld h e r to ju st rid e a b roo m st ick in
go in g ho me .
A ccu se d -a pp e lla n t EDNA wa s t he n t u rne d
o ve r
to
arso n
in ve st iga t o rs
h ea de d
by
S [ F]O 4 Dan ilo Talu sa n , wh o b rou gh t he r t o th e
S an
L a za ro
Fire
St a t io n
in
S ta .
Cru z, Ma n ila wh e re she wa s f urt he r in ve st iga t ed
a nd th en d et a in e d.
On 9
Januar y
2001,
an
Information [ 4 ] was
filed
appellant
with
the
crime
of Arson
with
Mult iple
provides:
The
Th at on o r a bo ut Ja nu a ry 2 , 20 01 , in t he
Cit y of Ma n ila , P h ilip p in e s, th e sa id a ccu se d, wit h
in te n t t o ca u se da ma ge , d id th en a nd t he re
wil lf u lly, u n la wf u ll y, f elo n io u sl y an d de libe ra t e ly
se t f ire u po n t he t wo - st o re y re sid en t ia l h ou se of
RO B E RTO SE PARA a nd f am ily mo st l y m ad e of
wo o d en m at e ria ls lo ca te d at No. 1 72 Mo d e rna St . ,
B a lu t , Tond o , th is cit y, b y li gh t in g crum p led
n e wsp ap e r wit h t he use of disp o sa b le ligh t e r
in sid e sa id h ou se kno win g th e sam e to be an
in ha b ite d ho u se an d sit u at ed in a t h ickly
p op u la t ed pla ce an d as a co n se qu e n ce t he re of a
con f la gra t io n e n su ed a nd th e sa id b u ild in g,
t o ge th e r wit h som e se ve n (7 ) a d jo in in g re side n t ia l
h ou se s, we re ra ze d b y f ire; th at b y re a so n a nd o n
t he o cca sio n of th e sa id f ire, th e f ollo win g,
n am e ly,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rob e rto
S ep a ra,
S r.,
45
ye a rs of a ge
Virg in ia Se pa ra y Me n do za ,
4 0 ye a rs of a ge
Mich ae l S ep a ra , 24 ye a rs of
a ge
Dap hn e Se pa ra , 18 ye a rs of
a ge
P riscilla S ep a ra , 14 ye a rs of
a ge
Rob e rto Se pa ra , Jr., 11 ye a rs
of a ge
prosecution
presented
five
(5)
witnesses,
its
charge
that
accused-appellant
Edna
their
abode
as
well
as
six
neighboring
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Pros. Rebagay:
And wher e were you when that admission to
Gus Abelgas was made?
A: I was in the house and I just saw it on tv,
sir.
W itness:
Yes, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
W hen was that?
mesa
niya.
yung
mga
diyaryo
at
sinunog
x x x x
Q: Aside from that statement, was there any
other statement made by the accused
Edna Malngan?
A: Yes, sir. Kaya po niya nagawa yon galit po
siya sa kanyang amo na si Virginia,
hindi siya pinasuweldo at gusto na po
niyang umuwi na (sic) ayaw siyang
payagan. Nagsalita pa po sa kanya na,
Sumakay ka na lang sa walis. Pagbalik
mo dito maputi ka na. (sic) Yon po ang
sinabi ng kanyang amo.
Att y. Masweng:
That was a statement of an alleged dead
person, your Honor.
Court:
Sabi ni Valdes, ha?
Pros. Rebagay:
Sabi
ni
Edna
Malngan
Valdez, Your Honor.
Pros. Rebagay:
Mr. W itness, what is your profession?
A: Sidecar driver, sir.
Q: On Januar y 2, 2001 at around 4:45 in the
morning, do you recall where wer e (sic)
you?
A: I was at the corner of Moderna Street, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
And while you were at the corner
of Moderna St., what happened if any,
Mr. W itness?
A: I saw Edna coming out from the door of the
house of Roberto Separa, sir.
Q: Do you know the number of the house of
the Separa Family?
kay
Car melita
Court:
Double hearsay na yon.
Pros. Rebagay:
No, Your Honor, the witness was present,
Your Honor, when that confession was
made by the accused to Carmelita
Valdez. [ 9 ]
lumakad
at
pedicab,
what
x x x x
Q: W here?
Court:
W hy?
W itness:
Madalas ko po siyang maging pasahero ng
aking pedicab.
Pros. Rebagay:
Ho w about the Separa family? W hy do you
know them?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa
Street. W hat happened when you go
(sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?
A: Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga
tatlong minuto po.
x x x x
W itness:
I went home and
passenger, sir.
looked
for
another
Pros. Rebagay:
After that, what happened when you wer e on
you wa y to your house to look for
passengers?
A Nakita ko na nga po na pagdating ko sa
Moderna, naglalagablab na apoy.
x x x x[10]
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, where wer e you when this incident
happened?
A: Kasi ugali ko na po tuwing umagangumaga po ako na pupunta sa barangay
Hall mga siguro 6:00 or 5:00 o clock,
me
sumigaw
ng
sunog
nirespondehannamin iyong sunog eh
me dala kaming fire.
Court:
You just answer the question. W here
were you when this incident happened?
W itness:
I was at the Barangay Hall, Your Honor.
Pros. Rebagay:
And you said that there was a fire that
occurred, what did you do?
W itness:
Iyon nga nagresponde kami doon sa
sunog eh nakita ko iyong sunog mukha
talagang
arson
dahil
napakalaki
kaagad, meron pong mga tipong Iyong
namatay po contractor po iyon eh kaya
siguro napakaraming kalat ng mga
pintura, mga container, kaya hindi
po namin naapula kaagad iyong
apoy,
nasunog
ultimo
iyong
fire
tank namin sa lakas, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
No w, will you please tell us where this fire
occurred?
Court:
W itness pointing to accused Edna Malngan.
Pros. Rebagay:
And what happened?
A: I brought her to the barangay hall, sir.
Q: And what happened at the barangay hall?
A: Inembestigahan ko, kinuha naming iyong
bag niya, me lighter siya eh. Inamin
niya po sa amin na kaya niya sinunog
hindi siya pinasasahod ng more or less
isang taon na eh. Ngayon sabi ko bakit
eh gusto ko ng umuwi ng probinsya ang
sabi sa akin ng amo ko sumakay na
lang daw po ako ng walis tingting para
makauwi, sir.
Att y. Herman:
We would like to object, Your Honor on
the ground that that is hearsay.
Pros. Rebagay:
That is not a hearsay statement, Your
Honor, straight from the mouth of the
accused.
Att y. Herman:
Its not under the exemption under the
Rules of Court, Your Honor. He is
testif ying according to what he has
heard.
Court:
Thats part of the narration. W hether it
is true or not, thats another matter. Let
it remain.
Pros. Rebagay:
No w, who were present when
accused are telling you this?
the
For
her
part,
Mercedita
Mendoza,
one
of
the
Moderna
St.,
Balut,
W itness:
Edna Malngan, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
W hy do you know that it was Edna Malngan
who burned the house of the Cifara
(sic) family?
to
Virginia
A: My husband, sir.
Q: W hat is the relationship of your husband to
the late Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)?
lang
ang
and (c) that the testimonies given by the wit nesses of the
prosecution
filed
its Comment/Opposition to
of
the
house
situated
beside
that
of
prosecution
presented
other
documentar y
evidence,
filed
[14]
and
Evidence [ 1 5 ] with
instead
a Mot ion
the
the
to
of
doing
Admit
so,
accused-
Demurrer
corresponding Demurrer
former
expressly
stating
to
to
that
her Demurrer
to
Evidence ,
accused-appellant
of
the
prosecution.
The
RTC
considered
x x x x
The second and third arguments will be
discussed jointly as they are interrelated with
each other. x x x.
x x x x
her
guilt
beyond
reasonable
doubt
as
[22]
the
Revised Penal Code:
[21]
proposition,
she
assigns
the
following
:
I.
II.
THE
HONORABLE
COURT
ERRED
IN
ALLOW ING AND GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND UNCOUNSELLED
ADMISSIONS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE
ACCUSED TO THE WITNESSES BARANGAY
CHAIRMAN
REMIGIO
BERNARDO,
MERCEDITA MENDOZA AND THE MEDIA.
Art.
320
of
destructive
the
RPC,
arson,
as
and
amended ,
the
with
provisions
respect
of PD
to
No.
govern
the
crime
of
arson
where
death
discussion [ 2 5 ] of
the
late
Mr.
Chief
Justice
Ramon
highly instructive:
x x x x
If the house was set on fire after the victims
therein were killed, fire would not be a
qualif ying circumstance. The accused would
be liable for the separate offenses of murder
or homicide, as the case may be, and arson.
[28]
order
perpetrated
to
determine
whether
what
arson,
crime/crimes
murder
or
was/ were
arson
and
or
on
the
occasion
of
arson,
the
crime
is
Th at on o r a bo ut Ja nu a ry 2 , 20 01 , in t he
Cit y of Ma n ila , P h ilip p in e s, th e sa id a ccu se d, wit h
in te n t t o ca u se da mag e , d id th en an d th e re
wil lf u lly, un la wf u ll y, f elo n io u sl y a nd d e libe ra te ly
se t f ire u po n th e tw o -sto re y re sid en t ia l h ou se of
RO B E RTO SE PARA a nd f am ily mo st l y m ad e of
wo o d en
m at e ria ls
lo ca te d
at
No.
1 72 Mo de rn a St . , Ba lu t, Ton d o,
th is
cit y,
by
li gh t in g crum p led ne wspa p e r wit h t he use of
d ispo sab le li ght e r in side sa id h ou se kn o win g th e
sam e to be an in h ab it ed h ou se a nd situ a te d in a
t h ickly p op u lat ed p la ce an d a s a co n se qu e n ce
t he re of a co nf la g ra t io n e nsu ed a nd t he sa id
b u ild in g, to ge t he r wi t h so me se ven (7 ) a d jo in in g
re sid en t ia l h ou se s, we re ra ze d b y f ire; t ha t b y
re a so n a nd o n th e occa sion of t he sa id f ire , t he
f o llo win g, na me l y,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
su sta in ed bu rn in ju r ie s wh ich we re th e
d ire ct cau se of th e ir d ea th im me d ia te l y th e re af te r.
[29]
[E mp ha sis su pp lie d .]
evidence
reasonable
doubt,
prosecution
was
evidence
hardly
to
establish
accused-appellant
only
able
enough
to
to
her
argues
adduce
prove
guilt
her
beyond
that
the
circumstantial
guilt
beyond
2.
appellant
on
that
fateful
early
morning
as
observed
lumakad
at
x x x x
Q: After she boarded your
happened, if any?
pedicab,
what
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
All
appellants
the
wit nesses
agitated
are
in
appearance
accord
that
was
out
accusedof
the
ordinar y. Remarkably,
she
has
never
denied
namatay,
kaya
iyong
mga
tao
kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya
dahil pin-pointed po siya, Your Honor,
iyong
dami
na
iyon
libo
iyong
nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall
napakahirap
awatin.
Gusting-gusto
siyang kunin ng mga taong-bayan,
nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong
nasunog. [ 3 5 ]
this
observation.
We give great weight to the findings of the RTC and
so accord credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses as it had the opportunit y to observe them
directly. The credibilit y given by trial courts to prosecution
witnesses
appellate
is
an
courts
important
can
rely
aspect
on
of
evidence
because
of
its
which
unique
and
examination
attitude,
by
during
the
direct
and
cross-
are
disinterested
mauled
by
the
kept
accused-appellant
angr y
crowd
outside
from
wh y
the
witnesses
presented
would
openly,
remains
at
large. Such
proposition
defies
of
W hile
the
prosecution
wit nesses
did
not
see
still
be
established
through
circumstantial
evidence
Circumstantial
evidence
is
that
which
and
observed
facts
evidence
[38]
It is founded on
and
coincidences
strangely
at
said
street
nowhere
to
go. Third,
and
who
appeared
to
have
the fire, plus the fact that he was able see the telecast of
testimonies
[40]
juxtaposed
wit h
the
testimony
including
where
unbroken
conviction
circumstantial
can
be
upheld
evidence. First,
on
the
prosecution
basis
of
witness
that
of
chain,
as
well
the
as
victims,
which
burned
seven
convincingly
leads
to
the
houses
form
an
unassailable
questions
the pedicab,
media.
accused-appellant
was
unsure
of
her
the
admissibilit y
Accused-appellant
Edna
of
her
contends
uncounselled
that
being
after
dropping
theSeparas house
her
off,
being
gutted
testified
a
that
blazing
he
and
up
accused-appellant
Edna
uncounselled admission.
questioning. [ 4 2 ]
the
following requirements:
deemed
is
no
as
applying
la w
Article
Constitution.
satisf y
the
including
the
enforcement
officer
III,
12(1)
W hen
Section
accused-appellant
for
purposes
and
(3),
was
of
brought
of
the
to
that
the
abovequoted
provision
must
(3) Any
confession
or
admission
obtained in violation of this Section or Section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence.
held
made
it must be voluntar y;
it must be made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel;
(3)
it must be express; and
(4) it must be in wr iting. [ 4 3 ]
Arguably,
x x x x
have
confessions
(1)
(2)
We partly disagree.
We
extrajudicial
longer
general
inquir y
into
an
already
been
appellants
observed
confession
or
applied
to
her.
Accused-
to Barangay Chairman
Rem igio
authorit y,
confession
of
accused-appellant,
given
to
Barangay
so
appropriately,
accused-
confession
to
Barangay
Chairman
Remigio
of
events,
which
are
not
within
his
personal
and
prosecution
undoubtedly are.
to
show
that
[44]
witness MerceditaMendoza
said
witness
was
acting
under
police
ru le d oe s n ot a pp l y, an d th e
st at em e nt s
are
a dm issib le
as
e vide n ce . E vide n ce as to t he m akin g
of su ch st at em e nt is n ot se con d a ry
b ut p rim a ry, f o r t he st a te me n t it se lf
m a y con st it ut e a f act in issu e or b e
circu m sta n t ia ll y re le va n t a s to t he
e xist e n ce of su ch a f act. [ 4 5 ]
regards
the
confession
given
by
accused-
As
previously
discussed,
there
are
t wo
(2)
Republic
Act
No.
7659;
and
2) simple
arson ,
under
burned
is
an
inhabited
house
[46]
or
we
circumstances
supplied.]
of
each
case.
[Emphasis
To emphasize:
Th e
n at u re
of
De st ru ct ive
Arso n is
d ist in gu ishe d f ro m S imp le Arson b y t he d e gre e of
p e rve rsit y o r vicio u sn e ss of th e crim ina l offe nd e r.
Th e a ct s com m it te d u nd e r Art . 32 0 of t he Re vise d
P en a l Cod e (a s a me nd ed ) con st it ut in g De st ru ct ive
A rson a re
ch a ra ct e ri ze d
a s he ino u s crime s f o r
b e in g g rie vo u s, od io u s an d ha te f u l offe n se s a nd
wh ich , b y rea son of t he ir inh e ren t o r ma nif e st
wicke dn e ss, vicio u sne ss, at ro cit y an d p e rve rsit y
a re re pu gn an t a nd o ut ra ge o u s to t he co mm on
st an da rd s a nd no rms of d ece n cy a nd mo ra lit y in a
ju st , ci vi lize d a nd o rd e red so cie t y. [ 5 1 ] On th e ot he r
h an d, a ct s com m itt e d u nd e r P D 1 61 3 co n st it u t in g
S imp le Arso n a re crime s wit h a le sse r d e gree of
p e rve rsit y a nd vi ciou sn e ss t ha t th e la w p un ishe s
wit h a le sse r p en a lt y. In o th e r wo rd s, S imp le
A rson con t em p lat e s crim e s wit h le ss sign if ica n t
so cia l, e co no m ic, po lit ica l an d na t io n a l se cu rit y
im p licat io n s th an De st ru ct i ve Arson . Ho we ve r,
a ct s f a llin g u nd e r S im p le Arso n ma y ne ve rt he le ss
b e con ve rt ed int o De st ru ct i ve Arson de pe nd in g on
t he qu a lif yin g circu m st a n ce s p re se nt . [E mp ha sis
sup p lie d. ] [ 5 2 ]
house of
set
fire
ROBERTO
upon
the two-storey
SEPARA
and
family
in
thickly
populated
place
and
as
together
residential
with
houses,
were
some
seven
ra zed
by
(7)
fire .
adjoining
b e con st ru ed st rict ly a ga in st t he go ve rn me n t, a nd
lib e ra lly in f a vo r of th e a ccu se d.
Th e e le me n t s of a rson un de r Se c. 3, p a r.
2 , of P D 1 61 3 a re: (a ) t he re is int e nt io na l b u rn in g;
a nd (b ) wh a t is in t en t ion a ll y bu rne d is an
in ha b ite d ho u se o r d we llin g. I n cid e nt a ll y, t he se
e lem en t s co n cu r in t he ca se at ba r. [ 5 5 ]
[Emphasis
supplied.]
As stated in the body of the Information, accusedThe facts of the case at bar is somewhat similar to
[54]
by
guilt y
of
destructive
arson
under
paragraph
adjoining houses .
Consequently, if
proved,
as it
was
offense
Republic
Act
No.
7659. This
Court,
through
Mr.
in
the
information,
the
information
remains
x x x [ T] he ap p licab le p ro visio n of la w sh ou ld be
S e c. 3, p a r. 2 , of P D 1 61 3 , wh ich im po se s a
p en a lt y
of
re clu sio n
t em po ra l
to
re clu sion p e rp e tu a f or ot he r ca se s of a rso n a s th e
p rop e rt ie s
b u rn ed
by
a ccu se d -a pp e llan t
a re spe ci fi c al l y
des c ri be d a s
h ou se s,
con t em p lat in g inh a b ite d h ou se s o r d we llin gs
u nd e r t he af o re sa id la w. The de scrip t ion s as
a lle ge d in t he se co n d Ame nd ed Inf o rm at io n
p a rt icu la rl y re f e r to th e st ru ct u re s a s ho use s
ra t he r t ha n a s bu ild in gs o r ed if ice s. The
a pp lica b le la w sho u ld th e ref o re b e Se c. 3, P a r. 2 ,
of P D 1 61 3, an d n ot Art . 32 0, p a r. 1 of th e Pe na l
Co de . I n ca se of am b igu it y in con st ru ct ion of
p en a l la ws, it is we ll -se tt le d t ha t su ch la ws sh a ll
by
is,
the
thus,
RTC
need
as
to
Sec.
modif y
5
of
PD
the
penalt y
No.
1613
Accordingly,
there
being
no
aggravating
destruction
of
his
house,
also
has
to
the reason
for
that
accused- appellants
concurrently
innocence,
no
reasonable
conviction
when
considered
her admission
given
beyond
wit h
to Mercedita Mendoza,
for
doubt
is
is
t wice
effectively
and
as
evident. Hence,
justified. More
so,
as
her
it
is
EDNA
MALNGAN Y MAYO
is
SO ORDERED.