People v. Dolendo

 

People v. Dolendo

G.R. No. 223098

June 3, 2019

FACTS:

                The CA modified RTC’s verdict conviction against appellant from arson with homicide to simple arson. Complainant Deolina Perocho testified that on September 18, 1996, around 4 o'clock in the afternoon while she and her children, Ivy ( one year old), Isalyn (three years old), and Janice (five years old) were eating in their house at Sitio Kapatagan, Barangay Capsay, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Mas bate, 5 she heard appellant shouting "Leonardo, I am already here!"6 Leonardo Perocho, Sr. (Leonardo Sr.) was Deolina's husband. She also saw appellant Nestor Dolendo y Fediles alias "Etoy" holding a gun. She and her children immediately ran upstairs and called for help. 7 But since their house was far from their neighbors, no one came to help. She saw appellant gather dried coconut leaves and set their porch on fire. 9 She and her three children jumped from the rear window and hid in a grassy area. 10 After a while, they heard her six year old son Leonardo Jr. crying. She then realized she had totally forgotten about Leonardo Jr. who was asleep when the house fire began. By the time they came out from their hiding place, the house had been completely burned and Leonardo Jr. had died. 11 Appellant and her husband were not in good terms as they had a previous altercation. Leonardo Sr. had since avoided appellant. 12 Jessie Perocho, Deolina's 18-year old son testified that he was working at a nearby farm when the incident took place. He saw appellant light a torch made of coconut leaves and use it to set their house on fire. 13 He got so scared he could not do anything to stop appellant.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not CA erred in affirming the RTC’s factual findings on the credibility of witnesses.

HELD:

                No. The record speaks for itself. Both Deolina and Jessie were categorical, consistent and firm in their narrations of the incident and the appellant's identity as the one who set their dwelling on fire. Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1613 (PD 1613), otherwise known as the New Arson Law. 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: 1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies; 2. Any inhabited house or dwelling; 3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel; 5. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest; 6. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and 7. Any railway or bus station, airpo1i, wharf or warehouse. Arson requires the following elements: (1) a fire was set intentionally; and (2) the accused was identified as the person who caused it. The corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and that it was intentionally caused.  In People v. Malngan, 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) it: 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 - hornicide/rnurder and arson.