534 Phil. 404
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
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.On 9 January 2001, an Information[4] was filed before the RTC of Manila, Branch 41, charging accused-appellant with the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-188424. The accusatory portion of said Information provides:
Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay Chairman Bernardo's 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 EDNA's 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 employer's 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 latter's detention cell why she did the burning of her employer's 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.
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made of wooden materials located at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting crumpled newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said house knowing the same to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire; that by reason and on the occasion of the said fire, the following, namely,When arraigned, accused-appellant with assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded[6] "Not Guilty" to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.[7]sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death immediately thereafter.[5]
- Roberto Separa, Sr., 45 years of age
- Virginia Separa y Mendoza, 40 years of age
- Michael Separa, 24 years of age
- Daphne Separa, 18 years of age
- Priscilla Separa, 14 years of age
- Roberto Separa, Jr., 11 years of age
Pros. Rebagay:Rolando Gruta, the pedicab driver and one of the barangay tanods in the area, testified:
Based on your investigation, was there any occasion when the accused Edna Malngan admitted to the burning of the house of the Separa Family?
x x x x
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
When was that?
A: On January 2 she was interviewed by the media, sir. The one who took the coverage was Carmelita Valdez of Channel 2, ABS-CBN. They have a footage that Edna admitted before them, sir.
Q: And where were you when Edna Malngan made that statement or admission to Carmelita Valdez of ABS-CBN?
A: I was at our office, sir.
Q: Was there any other occasion wherein the accused made another confession relative to the admission of the crime?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When was that?
A: Last Friday, sir. It was shown in True Crime of Gus Abelgas. She was interviewed at the City Jail and she admitted that she was the one who authored the crime, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
And where were you when that admission to Gus Abelgas was made?
A: I was in the house and I just saw it on tv, sir.
Q: What was that admission that you heard personally, when you were present, when the accused made the confession to Carmelita Valdez?
A: "Naglukot po siya ng papel, sinidihan niya ng lighter at inilagay niya sa ibabaw ng mesa 'yung mga diyaryo at sinunog niya."
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."
Atty. Masweng:
That was a statement of an alleged dead person, your Honor.
Court:
"Sabi ni Valdes, ha?"
Pros. Rebagay:
"Sabi ni Edna Malngan kay Carmelita Valdez," Your Honor.
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]
Pros. Rebagay:Remigio Bernardo, Barangay Chairman of the area where the fire occurred, stated:
Mr. Witness, what is your profession?
A: Sidecar driver, sir.
Q: On January 2, 2001 at around 4:45 in the morning, do you recall where were (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. Witness?
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?
A: 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.
x x x x
Q: And you said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family. How far is that house from the place where you were waiting at the corner of Moderna and Paulino Streets?
A: About three meters from Moderna and Paulino Streets where my pedicab was placed. My distance was about three meters, sir.
x x x x
Q: And how did you know that the house where Edna came out is that of the house of the Separa Family?
A: "Mismong nakita po ng dalawang mata ko na doon siya galing sa bahay ng Separa Family."
Q: How long have you known the Separa Family, if you know them?
A: About two years, sir.
Q: How about this Edna, the one you just pointed (to) awhile ago? Do you know her prior to January 2, 2001?
A: Yes, sir. I knew(sic) her for two years.
Court:
Why?
Witness:
"Madalas ko po siyang maging pasahero ng aking pedicab."
Pros. Rebagay:
How about the Separa family? Why do you know them?
A: They were the employers of Edna, sir.
Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family. What happened when you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family?
A: "Wala pa pong ano 'yan naisakay ko na siya sa sidecar."
Q: And what did you observe from Edna when you saw her coming out from the house of the Separa family?
A: "Nagmamadali po siyang lumakad at palinga-linga."
x x x x
Q: After she boarded your pedicab, what happened, if any?
A: "Nagpahatid po siya sa akin."
Q: Where?
A: To Nipa Street, sir.
Q: Did you bring her to Nipa Street as she requested?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What happened when you go (sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?
A: "Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga tatlong minuto po."
Q: What did she do when she asked (you) to stop there for three minutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to bring her directly to Balasan Street, sir.
x x x x
Q: What happened after that?
A: When we arrived there, she alighted and pay (sic) P5.00, sir.
Q And then what transpired after she alighted from your pedicab?
Witness:
I went home and I looked for another passenger, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
After that, what happened when you were on you way to your house to look for passengers?
A "Nakita ko na nga po na pagdating ko sa Moderna, naglalagablab na apoy."
Q: From what place was that fire coming out?
A: From the house of Roberto Separa Family, sir.
x x x x
Pros. Rebagay:
After you noticed that there was a fire from the house of Roberto Separa Family, what did you do if any?
A: "Siyempre po, isang Barangay Tanod po ako, nagresponde na po kami sa sunog. Binuksan na po ng Chairman naming 'yung tangke, binomba na po naming "yung apoy ng tubig."
Q: After that incident, Mr. Witness, have you seen Edna Again (sic)."
A: No, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
And after that incident, did you come to know if Edna was apprehended or not?
x x x x
A: I was called by our Barangay Chairman in order to identify Edna, sir.
x x x x[10]
Pros. Rebagay:For her part, Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors of the Separa Family and whose house was one of those destroyed by the fire, recounted:
On January 2, 2001, do you recall if there is a fire that occurred somewhere in your area of jurisdiction, particularly Moderna Street?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, where were you when this incident happened?
A: "Kasi ugali ko na po tuwing umagang-umaga po ako na pupunta sa barangay Hall mga siguro 6:00 or 5:00 o' clock, me sumigaw ng sunog nirespondehan namin iyong sunog eh me dala kaming fire."
Court:
You just answer the question. Where were you when this incident happened?
Witness:
I was at the Barangay Hall, Your Honor.
Pros. Rebagay:
And you said that there was a fire that occurred, what did you do?
Witness:
"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:
Now, will you please tell us where this fire occurred?
A: At the house of the six victims, sir.
Q: Whose house is that?
A: The house of the victims, sir.
x x x x
Pros. Rebagay:
You said that you responded to the place, what transpired after you responded to the place?
A: "Iyon nga po ang nagsabi may lumabas na isang babae po noon sa bahay na nagmamadali habang may sunog, me isang barangay tanod po akong nagsabi may humahangos na isang babae na may dalang bag papunta po roon palabas ng sasakyan," sir.
Q: And so what happened?
A: "Siyempre hindi naman ako nagtanong kung sino ngayon may dumating galing na sa bahay naming, may tumawag, tumawag po si Konsehala Alfonso na may isang babae na hindi mapakali doon sa Calle Pedro Alfonso, ke konsehal na baka ito sabi niya iyong ganito ganoon nirespondehan ko po," sir.
Q: Where did you respond?
A: At Balasan, sir, but it's not the area of my jurisdiction.
x x x x
Q: What happened when you reached that place?
A: "Siya po ang nahuli ko doon," sir.
Court:
Witness 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.
Atty. 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.
Atty. Herman:
It's not under the exemption under the Rules of Court, Your Honor. He is testifying according to what he has heard.
Court:
That's part of the narration. Whether it is true or not, that's another matter. Let it remain.
Pros. Rebagay:
Now, who were present when the accused are telling you this?
A: "Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para saktan hindi ko maibigay papatayin siya gawa ng may namatay eh anim na tao and 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. Gustong-gusto siyang kunin ng mga taong-bayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong nasunog."[11]
Pros. Rebagay:Lastly, the prosecution presented Rodolfo Movilla, owner of the house situated beside that of the Separa family. He testified that his house was also gutted by the fire that killed the Separa family and that he tried to help said victims but to no avail.
Madam Witness, on January 2, 2001, do you recall where were you residing then?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where were you residing at?
A: At No. 170 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.
Q: Why did you transfer your residence? Awhile ago you testified that you are now residing at 147 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila?
A: Because our house was burned, sir.
Q: More or less, how much did the loss incurred on the burning of your house (sic)?
A: More or less, P100,000.00, sir
Q: Do you know the accused in this case Edna Malngan?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why do you know her?
A: She is the house helper of the family who were (sic) burned, sir.
Q: What family?
A: Cifara (sic) family, sir.
Q: Who in particular do you know among Cifara (sic) family?
A: The woman, sir.
Q: What is the name?
A: Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic), sir.
Q: Are you related to Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)?
A: My husband, sir.
Q: What is the relationship of your husband to the late Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)?
A: They were first cousins, sir.
Q: How far is your house from the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
A: "Magkadikit lang po. Pader lang ang pagitan."
Q: You said that Edna Malngan was working with the Cifara (sic) family. What is the work of Edna Malngan?
A: "Nangangamuhan po." House helper, sir.
Q: How long do you know Edna Malngan as house helper of the Cifara (sic) family?
A: I cannot estimate but she stayed there for three to four years, sir.
Q: Do you know who caused the burning of the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
Witness:
Edna Malngan, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
Why do you know that it was Edna Malngan who burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
A: When the fire incident happened, sir, on January 3, we went to San Lazaro Fire Station and I saw Edna Malngan detained there, sir.
Q: And so what is your basis in pointing to Edna Malngan as the culprit or the one who burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
A: I talked to her when we went there at that day, sir.
Q: What transpired then?
A: I talked to her and I told her, "Edna, bakit mo naman ginawa 'yung ganun?"
Q: And what was the answer of Edna?
A: She answered, "Kasi pag nagpapaalam ako sa kanyang umuwi ng probinsya, nagpapaalam po siyang umuwi ng probinsya ang sinasabi daw po sa kanya ni Baby Cifara (sic) na, (sic)"Sige umuwi ka, pagdating mo maputi ka na. Sumakay ka sa walis pagdating mo maputi ka na."
Pros. Rebagay:
What is the basis there that she was the one who burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
A: I also asked her, "Paano mo ginawa 'yung sunog?" She told me, "Naglukot ako ng maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis niya sa ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay". (sic)[12]
The first argument of the accused that she is charged with an act not defined and penalized by law is without merit. x x x the caption which charges the accused with the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide is merely descriptive of the charge of Arson that resulted to Multiple Homicide. The fact is that the accused is charged with Arson which resulted to Multiple Homicide (death of victims) and that charge is embodied and stated in the body of the information. What is controlling is the allegation in the body of the Information and not the title or caption thereof. x x x.The decretal part of the RTC's Judgment reads:
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
[W]hile there is no direct evidence that points to the accused in the act of burning the house or actually starting the subject fire, the following circumstances that show that the accused intentionally caused or was responsible for the subject fire have been duly established:[T]he timing of her hurried departure and nervous demeanor immediately before the fire when she left the house and rode a pedicab and her same demeanor, physical and mental condition when found and apprehended at the same place where she alighted from the pedicab and the discovery of the lighter in her bag thereafter when investigated indisputably show her guilt as charged.
- that immediately before the burning of the house, the accused hurriedly and with head turning in different directions (palinga-linga) went out of the said house and rode a pedicab apparently not knowing where to go x x x;
- that immediately after the fire, upon a report that there was a woman in Balasan St. who appears confused and apprehensive (balisa), the Barangay Chairman and his tanods went there, found the accused and apprehended her and brought her to the barangay hall as shown by the testimony of Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo; and
- that when she was apprehended and investigated by the barangay officials and when her bag was opened, the same contained a disposable lighter as likewise shown by the testimony of the Barangay Chairman.
If there is any doubt of her guilt that remains with the circumstantial evidence against her, the same is removed or obliterated with the confessions/admissions of the commission of the offense and the manner thereof that she made to the prosecution witnesses Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza and to the media, respectively.
x x x x
[H]er confessions/admissions are positive acknowledgment of guilt of the crime and appear to have been voluntarily and intelligently given. These confessions/admissions, especially the one given to her neighbor Mercedita Mendoza and the media, albeit uncounselled and made while she was already under the custody of authorities, it is believed, are not violative of her right under the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Demurrer to Evidence is hereby denied and judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to the death of six (6) people and sentencing her to suffer the mandatory penalty of death, and ordering her to pay the heirs of the victims Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa and children Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr., the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for each victim and the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as temperate damages for their burned house or a total of Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos and to Rodolfo Movilla the amount of One Hundred [Thousand] (P100,000.00) Pesos.Due to the death penalty imposed by the RTC, the case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic review. Conformably with our decision in People v. Efren Mateo y Garcia,[19] however, we referred the case and its records to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed October 13, 2003 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, finding accused-appellant Edna Malngan y Mayo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Arson with multiple homicide and sentencing her to suffer the DEATH PENALTY is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that she is further ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the victims who perished in the fire, to be paid to their heirs. She is ordered to pay Rodolfo Movilla, one whose house was also burned, the sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damage.It is the contention of accused-appellant that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the perpetrator of the crime charged. In support of said exculpatory proposition, she assigns the following errors[21]:
Pursuant to Section 13 (a), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals, after rendering judgment, hereby refrains from making an entry of judgment and forthwith certifies the case and elevates the entire record of this case to the Supreme Court for review.[20]
THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH (MULTIPLE) HOMECIDE.I.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED; andII.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING 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.
Revised Penal Code:Art. 320 of the RPC, as amended, with respect to destructive arson, and the provisions of PD No. 1613 respecting other cases of arson provide only one penalty for the commission of arson, whether considered destructive or otherwise, where death results therefrom. The raison d'être is that arson is itself the end and death is simply the consequence.[24]
ART. 320. Destructive Arson. - x x x x
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]
Presidential Decree No. 1613:
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. - If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]
Groizard says that when fire is used with the intent to kill a particular person who may be in a house and that objective is attained by burning the house, the crime is murder only. When the Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end. There can be no murder without a design to take life.[26] In other words, if the main object of the offender is to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder. But if the main objective is the burning of the building, the resulting homicide may be absorbed by the crime of arson.[27]Accordingly, 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.
x x x x
If the house was set on fire after the victims therein were killed, fire would not be a qualifying circumstance. The accused would be liable for the separate offenses of murder or homicide, as the case may be, and arson.[28]
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made of wooden materials located at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting crumpled newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said house knowing the same to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire; that by reason and on the occasion of the said fire, the following, namely,
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death immediately thereafter.[29] [Emphasis supplied.]accused-appellant is being charged with the crime of arson. It it is clear from the foregoing that her intent was merely to destroy her employer's house through the use of fire.
fall short of proving that she had any involvement in setting her employer's house on fire, much less show guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that "it is a fact that housemaids are the first persons in the house to wake up early to perform routine chores for their employers,"[31] one of which is preparing and cooking the morning meal for the members of the household; and necessity requires her to go out early to look for open stores or even nearby marketplaces to buy things that will complete the early meal for the day.[32] She then concludes that it was normal for her to have been seen going out of her employer's house in a hurry at that time of the day and "to look at all directions to insure that the house is secure and that there are no other persons in the vicinity."[33]
- That immediately before the burning of the house , the accused hurriedly and with head turning in different directions (palinga-linga) went out of the said house and rode a pedicab apparently not knowing where to go for she first requested to be brought to Nipa St. but upon reaching there requested again to be brought to Balasan St. as shown by the testimony of prosecution witness Rolando Gruta;
- That immediately after the fire, upon a report that there was a woman in Balasan St. who appears confused and apprehensive (balisa), the Barangay Chairman and his tanods went there, found the accused and apprehended her and brought her to the barangay hall as shown by the testimony of Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo; and
- That when she was apprehended and investigated by the barangay officials and when her bag was opened, the same contained a disposable lighter as likewise shown by the testimony of the Barangay Chairman.[30]
Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family. What happened when you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family?We quote with approval the pronouncement of the RTC in discrediting accused-appellant's aforementioned rationale:
A: "Wala pa pong ano 'yan naisakay ko na siya sa sidecar."
Q: And what did you observe from Edna when you saw her coming out from the house of the Separa family?
A: "Nagmamadali po siyang lumakad at palinga-linga."
x x x x
Q: After she boarded your pedicab, what happened, if any?
A: "Nagpahatid po siya sa akin."
Q: Where?
A: To Nipa Street, sir.
Q: Did you bring her to Nipa Street as she requested?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What happened when you go (sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?
A: "Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga tatlong minuto po."
Q: What did she do when she asked (you) to stop there for three minutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to bring her directly to Balasan Street, sir.
x x x x
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.We have held that the abovequoted provision applies to the stage of custodial investigation - when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect.[41] Said constitutional guarantee has also been extended to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been "invited" for questioning.[42]
x x x x
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this Section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence.
(1) it must be voluntary;Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance, may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of 2 January 2001, she was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole family of Roberto Separa, Sr. She was, therefore, already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1), of the Constitution should have already been observed or applied to her. Accused-appellant's confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo was made in response to the "interrogation" made by the latter - admittedly conducted without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession of accused-appellant, given to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, as well as the lighter found by the latter in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her as such were obtained in violation of her constitutional rights.
(2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
(3) it must be express; and
(4) it must be in writing.[43]
Although this testimony of SFO4 Danilo Talusan is hearsay because he was not present when Gus Abelgas interviewed accused-appellant EDNA, it may nevertheless be admitted in evidence as an independently relevant statement to establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact that the statement was made [People v. Mallari, G.R. No. 103547, July 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 621 citing People v. Cusi, Jr., G.R. No. L-20986, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 944.]. In People vs. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75, February 21, 2001, 352 SCRA 455, the Supreme Court ruled that:
As regards the confession given by accused-appellant to the media, we need not discuss it further for the reporters were never presented to testify in court."Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact."[45]
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.[47]The ultimate query now is which kind of arson is accused-appellant guilty of?
Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, 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.[[49]] The classification of this type of crime is known as Destructive Arson, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The reason for the law is self- evident: to effectively discourage and deter the commission of this dastardly crime, to prevent the destruction of properties and protect the lives of innocent people. Exposure to a brewing conflagration leaves only destruction and despair in its wake; hence, the State mandates greater retribution to authors of this heinous crime. The exceptionally severe punishment imposed for this crime takes into consideration the extreme danger to human lives exposed by the malicious burning of these structures; the danger to property resulting from the conflagration; the fact that it is normally difficult to adopt precautions against its commission, and the difficulty in pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the greater impact on the social, economic, security and political fabric of the nation. [Emphasis supplied.]Prescinding from the above clarification vis-à-vis the description of the crime as stated in the accusatory portion of the Information, it is quite evident that accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Simple Arson - for having "deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family x x x knowing the same to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire." [Emphasis supplied.]
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under Art. 320, death should result, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B of The Revised Penal Code remains the governing law for Simple Arson. This decree contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included in Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659, and classified as other cases of arson. These include houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments.[[50]] Although the purpose of the law on Simple Arson is to prevent the high incidence of fires and other crimes involving destruction, protect the national economy and preserve the social, economic and political stability of the nation, PD 1613 tempers the penalty to be meted to offenders. This separate classification of Simple Arson recognizes the need to lessen the severity of punishment commensurate to the act or acts committed, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. [Emphasis supplied.]
To emphasize:The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended) constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.[51] On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and national security implications than Destructive Arson. However, acts falling under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into Destructive Arson depending on the qualifying circumstances present. [Emphasis supplied.][52]
x x x [T]he applicable provision of law should be Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613, which imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for other cases of arson as the properties burned by accused-appellant are specifically described as houses, contemplating inhabited houses or dwellings under the aforesaid law. The descriptions as alleged in the second Amended Information particularly refer to the structures as houses rather than as buildings or edifices. The applicable law should therefore be Sec. 3, Par. 2, of PD 1613, and not Art. 320, par. 1 of the Penal Code. In case of ambiguity in construction of penal laws, it is well-settled that such laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.As stated in the body of the Information, accused-appellant was charged with having intentionally burned the two-storey residential house of Robert Separa. Said conflagration likewise spread and destroyed seven (7) adjoining houses. Consequently, if proved, as it was proved, at the trial, she may be convicted, and sentenced accordingly, of the crime of simple arson. Such is the case "notwithstanding the error in the designation of the offense in the information, the information remains effective insofar as it states the facts constituting the crime alleged therein."[56] "What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violate, x x x, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited."[57]
The elements of arson under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613 are: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Incidentally, these elements concur in the case at bar.[55]
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. - If by reason of or on the occasion of arson death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance alleged in the Information, the imposable penalty on accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.