People of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand Baluntong, G.R. No.

182061
March 15, 2010

Facts:
Ferdinand Baluntong set on fire, the house of Celerina Solangon, causing the complete destruction of
the said house, the death of Celerina Solangon and Alvin Savarez, and inflicting serious physical
injuries on Joshua Savarez, thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime
of murder as a consequence but which, nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator. The Trial Court found accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder. He is sentenced to suffer the
supreme penalty of death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court but in light of
the passage of R.A. 9346, it reduced the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua.

Issue:
Whether the courts are correct in charging the accused the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder

Ruling:
The Court of Appeals Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a NEWone is rendered finding appellant,
Ferdinand T. Baluntong, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Arson under Sec. 3(2) of P.D. No.
1613 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole and
other civil damages modified.

In determining the offense committed by appellant, People v. Malngan teaches:

In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were
perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the
main objective of the malefactor:
(a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed;
(b) if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or
edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder
only; lastly,
(c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so,
but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct
crimes committed homicide/murder and arson.

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1613, Amending the Law on Arson, reads:
Section 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: (2) Any inhabited house or dwelling;

The Court finds that there is no showing that appellants main objective was to kill Celerina and her
housemates and that the fire was resorted to as the means to accomplish the goal.

Absent any concrete basis then to hold that the house was set on fire to kill the occupants, appellant
cannot be held liable for double murder with frustrated murder. Celerina was outside the house at the
time it was set on fire. She merely entered the burning house to save her grandsons.

While the above-quoted Information charged appellant with Double Murder with Frustrated Murder,
appellant may be convicted of Arson. For the only difference between a charge for Murder under Article
248(3) of the Revised Penal Code and one for Arson under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 3 (2) of P.D. No. 1613, lies in the intent in pursuing the act. As reflected above, as it was not
shown that the main motive was to kill the occupants of the house, the crime would only be arson, the
homicide being a mere consequence thereof, hence, absorbed by arson. When there is variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense charged
is included or necessarily includes the offense proved, conviction shall be for the offense proved which
is included in the offense charged, or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Under Section 5 of P.D. 1613, the penalty of reclusion perpetuato death is imposed when death results.
In the light of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
People of the Philippine vs. Jesse Villegas Murcia, G.R. 182460

March 9, 2010

Facts:

Eulogio Quilates is the owner of a two-storey houe in Paringao, Bauang, La Union. Among the
occupants of his house were his sister Felicidad Quilates; another sister Alicia Manlupig; and nephew
Herminio Manlupig. Jessie Murcia, who is the adopted son of Felicidad, occupied one room in the house.

At around 3:30pm of March 24, 2004, Murcia was having a drinking spree with his cousin
Herminio and brothers-in-law Joey and Ricky Viduya in front of their house. Murcia and Herminio were
arguing over the matter of caring for Felicidad while the latter was confined in the hospital. Ricky tried
to mediate between the two. Murcia was then seen going inside the house to get a bolo. When he
emerged from the house ten minutes later, he ran after Heriminio but the latter managed to escaped
unscathed. Murcia again went back to the house.

Meanwhile, after pacifying Murcia and Herminio, Ricky resumed drinking. A few minutes later,
he saw smoke coming from the room of Murcia. As Ricky as about to enter the house, he met Murcia at
the door. Murcia apparently tried to stab Ricky but was unsuccessful. Rick witnessed Murcia stab
Felicidad and Alicia. Herminio, who had since come back to the drinking table, also saw the smoke. He
peeped through the small window of the house and witnessed Murcia burning some clothes and boxes
in the sala. Herminio immediteluy went inside the house to save his personal belongings. Upon
emerging from the house, Herminio sw his mother, Alicia, bloodied.

Alicia testifies that she was sitting on a chair near the toilet when she saw smoke coming out
of Murcias room. Before she could react. Murcia came charging at her and stabbed her. She sustained
wounds on her upper thigh, arms, below her breast and on her ear. Eulogio heard a commotion while
he was cooking in the second floor of the house. When Eulogio went down, he already saw smoke
coming from the room of Murcia. He then saw Felicidad near the comfort room located outside the
house and was bleeding from her mouth. As he was about to help Felicidad, he met Murcia who was
then holding a knife. However, Herminio and Ricky were able to pin Murcia down. Before they could
retaliate, the barangay captain arrived at the scene. As a result, eight houses were razed.

RTC finds Murcia guilty of arson and frustrated homicide while C affirmed the lower courts
decision but reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. Murcia admitted to the crime of
frustrated homicide, hence the review is limited to the crime of arson.

Issues:

Whether Murcia is guilty of Destructive or Simple Arson

Ruling:

Simple Arson because according to a close examination of the records, as well as description of
the crime as stated in the information, the crime committed is in fact simple arson because the burned
properties are residential houses. There are actually two categories of arson, namely: Destructive
Arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code and Simple Arson under Presidential Decree 1316.
Said classification is based on the kind, character and location of the property burned, regardless of
the value of the damage caused. Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both
public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military,
government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. Presidential Decree 316
covers houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations,
airports, wharves and other industrial establishments.

People of the Philippines vs. Edna Malngan, G.R. 170470

September 26, 2006

Facts:

From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay Chairman in the
area, as well as the personal account of the pedicab driver named Rolando Gruta, it
was at around 4:45 a.m. on January 2, 2001 when Remigio Bernardo and his tanods
saw the accused-appellant EDNA, one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa, Sr.,
with her head turning in different directions, hurriedly leaving the house of her
employer at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila. She was seen to have
boarded a pedicab which was driven by a person later identified as Rolando Gruta. She
was heard by the pedicab driver to have instructed that she be brought to Nipa Street,
but upon her arrival there, she changed her mind and asked that she be brought
instead to Balasan Street where she finally alighted, after paying for her fare.

Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay Chairman Bernardos group
later discovered that a fire gutted the house of the employer of the housemaid.
Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods responded to the fire upon hearing shouts
from the residents and thereafter, firemen from the Fire District 1-NCR arrived at the
fire scene to contain the fire.

When Barangay Chairman Bernardo returned to the Barangay Hall, he received

a report from pedicab driver Rolando Gruta, who was also a tanod, that shortly before
the occurrence of the fire, he saw a woman (the housemaid) coming out of the house
at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila and he received a call from his wife
telling him of a woman (the same housemaid) who was acting strangely and
suspiciously on Balasan Street. Barangay Chairman Bernardo, Rolando Gruta and the
other tanods proceeded to Balasan Street and found the woman who was later
identified as the accused-appellant. After Rolando Gruta positively identified the
woman as the same person who left No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila,
Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods apprehended her and brought her to the
Barangay Hall for investigation. At the Barangay Hall, Mercedita Mendoza, neighbor of
Roberto Separa, Sr. and whose house was also burned, identified the woman as
accused-appellant EDNA who was the housemaid of Roberto Separa, Sr. Upon
inspection, a disposable lighter was found inside accused-appellant EDNAs bag.
Thereafter, accused-appellant EDNA confessed to Barangay Chairman Bernardo in the
presence of multitudes of angry residents outside the Barangay Hall that she set her
employers house on fire because she had not been paid her salary for about a year
and that she wanted to go home to her province but her employer told her to just ride
a broomstick in going home.

Accused-appellant EDNA was then turned over to arson investigators headed

by S[F]O4 Danilo Talusan, who brought her to the San Lazaro Fire Station in Sta. Cruz,
Manila where she was further investigated and then detained.

When Mercedita Mendoza went to the San Lazaro Fire Station to give her sworn
statement, she had the opportunity to ask accused-appellant EDNA at the latters
detention cell why she did the burning of her employers house and accused-appellant
 EDNA replied that she set the house on fire because when she asked permission to go
home to her province, the wife of her employer Roberto Separa, Sr., named Virginia
Separa (sic) shouted at her: Sige umuwi ka, pagdating mo maputi ka na. Sumakay ka
sa walis, pagdating mo maputi ka na (TSN, January 22, 2002, p.6) (Go ahead, when
you arrive your color would be fair already. Ride a broomstick, when you arrive your
color would be fair already.) And when Mercedita Mendoza asked accused-appellant
EDNA how she burned the house, accused-appellant EDNA told her: Naglukot ako ng
maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis ko sa ibabaw ng
lamesa sa loob ng bahay (TSN, January 22, 2002, p. 7.) (I crumpled newspapers,
lighted them with a disposable lighter and threw them on top of the table inside the
house.)

When interviewed by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN Network,

accused-appellant EDNA while under detention (sic) was heard by SFO4 (sic) Danilo
Talusan as having admitted the crime and even narrated the manner how she
accomplished it. SFO4 (sic) Danilo Talusan was able to hear the same confession, this
time at his home, while watching the television program True Crime hosted by Gus
Abelgas also of ABS-CBN Network.

The fire resulted in [the] destruction of the house of Roberto Separa, Sr. and
other adjoining houses and the death of Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa
together with their four (4) children, namely: Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr

Issue:

Whether accused is guilty of destructive or simple arson

Ruling:

To s um m a r i z e , a c c u s e d - a p p e l l a n t s a l t e rn a t i v e p l e a t h a t s h e b e a c q u i t t e d o f t h e
c r i m e m u s t b e re j e c t e d . Wi t h t h e e v i d e n c e o n re c o rd , w e fi n d n o c o g e n t re a s o n t o
d i s t u r b t h e fi n d i n g s o f t h e RTC a n d t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s . I t i s i n d u b i t a b l e t h a t
a c c u s e d - a p p e l l a n t i s t h e a u t h o r o f t h e c r i m e of s i m p l e a r s o n. A l l t h e c i rc u m s t a n t i a l
e v i d e n c e p re s e n t e d b e f o re t h e RTC , v i e w e d i n i t s e n t i re t y , i s a s c o n v i n c i n g a s d i re c t
e v i d e n c e a n d , a s s u c h , n e g a t e s a c c u s e d - a p p e l l a n t s i n n o c e n c e , a n d w h e n c o n s i d e re d
c o n c u rre n t l y w i t h h e r a d m i s s i o n g i v e n t o M e rc e d i t a M e n d o z a , t h e f o rm e r s g u i l t
b e y o n d re a s o n a b l e d o u b t i s tw i c e a s e v i d e n t . H e n c e , h e r c o n v i c t i o n i s e ff e c t i v e l y
j u s t i fi e d . M o re s o, a s i t i s p ro p i t i o u s t o n o t e t h a t i n s t a r k c o n t r a s t t o t h e f a c t u a l
c i rc u m s t a n c e s p re s e n t e d b y t h e p ro s e c u t i o n , a c c u s e d - a p p e l l a n t n e i t h e r m u s t e re d a
d e n i a l n o r a n a l i b i exc e p t f o r t h e p ro p o s i t i o n t h a t h e r g u i l t h a d n o t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d
b e y o n d re a s o n a b l e d o u b t .

A r t i c l e 3 2 0 o f T h e R e v i s e d P e n a l C o d e , a s a m e n d e d b y RA 7 6 5 9 ,
c o n t e m p l a t e s t h e m a l i c i o u s b u rn i n g o f s t r u c t u r e s , b o t h p u b l i c a n d
p r i v a t e , h o t e l s , b u i l d i n g s , e d i fi c e s , t r a i n s , v e s s el s , a i r c r a f t ,
factories and other m i l i ta r y, government or commercial
establishments by any person or group of persons . The
c l a s s i fi c a t i o n o f t h i s t y p e o f c r i m e i s k n o w n a s D e s t r u c t i v e A r s o n , w h i c h
i s p u n i s h a b l e b y r e c l u s i o n p e r p e t u a t o d e a t h . T h e re a s o n f o r t h e l aw i s
s e l f- e v i d e n t : t o e ff e c t i v e l y d i s c o u r a g e a n d d e t e r t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h i s
d a s t a rd l y c r i m e , t o p re v e n t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f p ro p e r t i e s a n d p ro t e c t
t h e l i v e s of i n n o c e n t p e o p l e . E x p o s u re t o a b re w i n g c o n fl a g r a t i o n
l e a v e s o n l y d e s t r u c t i o n a n d d e s p a i r i n i t s w a ke ; h e n c e , t h e S t a t e
m a n d a t e s g re a t e r re t r i b u t i o n t o a u t h o r s o f t h i s h e i n o u s c r i m e . T h e
exc e p t i o n a l l y s e v e re p u n i s h m e n t im p o s e d f o r t h i s c r i m e t a ke s i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e ex t re m e d a n g e r t o h u m a n l i v e s ex p o s e d b y t h e
m a l i c i o u s b u rn i n g o f t h e s e s t r u c t u re s ; t h e d a n g e r t o p ro p e r t y re s u l t i n g
 f ro m t h e c o n fl a g r a t i o n ; t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s n o rm a l l y d i ffi c u l t t o a d o p t
p re c a u t i o n s a g a i n s t i t s c o m m i s s i o n , a n d t h e d i ffi c u l t y i n p i n p o i n t i n g t h e
p e r p e t r a t o r s ; a n d , t h e g re a t e r im p a c t o n t h e s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c , s e c u r i t y
and political fabric of the nation.
I f a s a c o n s e q u e n c e of t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a n y of t h e a c t s
p e n a l i z e d u n d e r A r t . 3 2 0 , d e a t h s h o u l d re s u l t , t h e m a n d a t o r y p e n a l t y o f
death shall be imposed.
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , P D 1 6 1 3 w h i c h re p e a l e d A r t s . 3 2 1 t o 3 2 6 -B o f
T h e Re v i s e d Pe n a l C o d e re m a i n s t h e g o v e rn i n g l a w f o r S im p l e A r s o n .
T h i s d e c re e c o n t e m p l a t e s t h e m a l i c i o u s b u rn i n g o f p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e
s t r u c t u re s , re g a rd l e s s o f s i z e , n o t i n c l u d e d i n A r t . 3 2 0 , a s a m e n d e d b y
RA 7 6 5 9 , a n d c l a s s i fi e d a s o t h e r c a s e s o f a r s o n . T h e s e i n c l u d e h o u s es ,
dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations,
r a i l w ay s , b u s s t a t i o n s , a i r p o r t s , w h a r v e s a n d o t h e r i n d u s t r i a l
e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . A l t h o u g h t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e l aw o n S im p l e A r s o n i s
t o p re v e n t t h e h i g h i n c i d e n c e o f fi re s a n d o t h e r c r i m e s i n v o l v i n g
d e s t r u c t i o n , p ro t e c t t h e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y a n d p re s e r v e t h e s o c i a l ,
economic and political stability of the nation, PD 1613 tempers the
p e n a l t y t o b e m e t e d t o o ff e n d e r s . T h i s s e p a r a t e c l a s s i fi c a t i o n o f S im p l e
A r s o n re c o g n i z e s t h e n e e d t o l e s s e n t h e s e v e r i t y of p u n i s h m e n t
commensurate to the act or acts committed, depending on the
p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s a n d c i rc u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h c a s e .

People of the Philippines vs. Ferigel Oliva, G.R. No. 122110

September 26, 2000

Facts:
On August 23, 1993, at around eleven o'clock in the evening, Avelino Manguba (hereinafter referred to
as "Avelino") and his family were sleeping in their house in San Jose, Claveria, Cagayan. Avelino went
out of the house to urinate. He saw Ferigel set the roof of their house on fire with a lighted match.
Awakened by the loud barking of dogs, Avelino's wife sensed danger and peeped through a hole in
their wall. She also saw Ferigel burn the roof of their house. She shouted, "Perry is burning our house!"
and called out to the neighbors for help.

While the fire razed Avelino's house, Ferigel and three others, Dominador Oliva, Marcos Paderan and
Arnel Domingo watched at a distance of about five (5) meters.

One of the neighbors, Benjamin Estrellon (hereinafter referred to as "Benjamin") went to the nearby
river and fetched water with a pail. As Benjamin was helping put out the fire, he was shot by Ferigel at
close range. Benjamin tried to run, but he slumped and fell to the ground. The gunshot wound caused
Benjamin's death.

Avelino, his wife, and Benjamin's son, Noel, witnessed the shooting since they were only about five (5)
to six (6) meters away from Ferigel when the incident occurred. The place was brightly lit by the
burning roof and visibility was not a problem.

The trial court charged the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson penalized
under par. 2, Sec. 3 of PD 1613 and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.

Issue:
Whether there is a need to prove that accused had actual knowledge that the house burned was
inhabited to qualify it as arson

Ruling:
When Ferigel burned Avelino's house, the law applicable was P. D. No. 1613. Under Section 3 (2) of the
law, the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
"any inhabited house or dwelling." Under the amendment, it is the fact that the house burned is
inhabited that qualifies the crime. There is no need to prove that the accused had actual knowledge
that the house was inhabited.

Under Section 3 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613, the elements of arson are: (1) that there is
intentional burning; and (2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. The
records show that when Ferigel willfully set fire to the roof of Avelino's house, Avelino's wife and
children were asleep therein.

Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecutions for felonies and offenses. Corpus delicti is the
body or substance of the crime. It refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. Corpus
delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses.
In murder, the fact of death is the corpus delicti. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of
the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. The uncorroborated
testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant
conviction. Here, corpus delicti of the arson and murder was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Convicting Ferigel Oliva of arson, the trial court imposed the straight penalty of seventeen (17) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. This is an error. An indeterminate penalty must
be imposed. This is mandatory. Thus, we modify the penalty.

In People v. Omotoy, we stated that in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances proven,
the prescribed penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the imposable penalty is prision mayor, in any of its periods, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.