Frances Katherine Miraflor-Antonio

People of the Philippines vs. Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010, Perez

Facts:

While on a drinking spree, the accused, Murcia, had an argument with Herminio. Murcia then got a bolo and ran after Herminio but the latter was able to escape. A few minutes later, a smoke was seen coming from the room of Murcia. Herminio witnessed him burning some clothes and immediately went inside the house to save his belongings. Upon emerging from the house, Herminio saw his mother, Alicia, bloodied because Murcia stabbed her. Murcia also stabbed two other persons, Felicidad and Alicia, who are both occupants of the burning house. Eight houses in total were razed.

Murcia was charged with the crime of arson and frustrated homicide. He admitted to the crime of frustrated homicide but denied setting the house on fire. He questioned the credibility of some witnesses and specifically imputed ill-motive on the part of Herminio in testifying against him, especially after their fight. He also submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses did not prove the identity of the perpetrator.Issue:

Whether or not Murcia is guilty of the crime of arson.

Held:

Yes, Murcia is guilty of the crime of arson. While nobody directly saw him burn the house, there were enough circumstances which yielded to a logical conclusion that the fire that gutted eight houses was authored by him.

Murcia imputes ill-motive on the part of Herminio.The Court does not discount the fact that there was a fight between appellant and Herminio which preceded the occurrence of the fire.However, it cannot be presumed that Herminio will automatically give a false testimony against appellant.His testimony, having withstood cross-examination, has passed the scrutiny of the lower courts and was held to be credible.People of the Philippines vs. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006, Chico-NazarioFacts:

At around 4:45am on January 2, 2001, Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay Chairman in the area, and his tanods saw the accused, Edna, a housemaid, leaving the house of her employer, Roberto Separa Sr., with her head turning in different directions. At around 5:15am, Barangay Chairmans group discovered that a fire gutted the house of Ednas employer. 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 children.A disposable lighter was found in the possession of Edna. Thereafter, in the presence of multitudes of angry residents outside the barangay hall, Edna confessed 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.Edna contends the following: (a) The prosecutions evidence to assert her guilt beyond reasonable is insufficient since the prosecution was only able to adduce to circumstancial evidence. (b) Her uncounselled extrajudicial confession is not admissible as evidence against her for being violative of Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution. (c) Since the identities of the burned bodies were never conclusively established , she cannot be responsible for their deaths.Issue:

Whether or not Edna is guilty of the crime of arson.Held:Edna is guilty of the crime of simple arson.

In this case, the interlocking testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, taken together, exemplify a case where conviction can be upheld on the basis of circumstantial evidence. While the prosecution witnesses did not see accused-appellant actually starting the fire that burned several houses and killed the Separa family, her guilt may still be established through circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and, (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the extrajudicial confessions made must satisfy the following requirements:

1. it must be voluntary;2. it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;3. it must be express; and4. it must be in writing.

Arguably, thebarangaytanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance,maybe deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution.

In the crime of arson, the identities of the victims are immaterial in that intent to kill them particularly is not one of the elements of the crime. As we have clarified earlier, the killing of a person is absorbed in the charge of arson, simple or destructive.The prosecution need only prove, that the burning was intentional and that what was intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.People of the Philippines vs. Oliva, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2000, PardoFacts:

On August 23, 1993, at around eleven o'clock in the evening, Avelino Manguba and his family were sleeping in their house in San Jose, Claveria, Cagayan. Avelino went out of the house to urinate. He saw Ferigel Oliva 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 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.A crime of murder and arson where charged against Ferigel Oliva, Dominador Oliva, Marcos Paderan, and Arnel Domingo. Oliva escaped while in custody of P/G-1 Joaquin P. Garingan. At the time of his escape, Ferigel was a detention prisoner at the Provincial Jail Extension of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan. Thereafter, Ferigel was apprehended at Angadanan, Isabela by prison guards Joaquin P. Garingan and Angelino M. Cacatian, members of the Scout Ranger regiment and members of the PNP of Angadanan, Isabela. The cases for arson and murder were tried jointly. In view of the common evidence presented coupled with the difficulty of distinguishing which evidence was for a particular case, only one decision was rendered.

Marcos Paderan, Arnel Domingo and Dominador Oliva were acquitted of the crime of Arson and Murder for lack of evidence. Ferigel Oliva was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both the crimes of arson and murder.For the crime of arson, Ferigel argues that the trial court erred when it took into account the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the commission of murder and the fact that the house was inhabited when it was burned.

Issues:

Whether or not Oliva is guilty of the crime of Arson.Held:When Ferigel burned Avelino's house, the law applicable was P. D. No. 1613. Under Section 3 (2) of the law, the penalty ofreclusion temporaltoreclusion perpetuashall 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.

Inarson, thecorpusdelictirule 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 thecorpus delictiand to warrant conviction. Here,corpus delictiof the arson and murder was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt.