People vs.

Malngan y Mayo (2006)

Summary Cases:

● People vs. Edna Malngan y Mayo

Subject: There is no complex crime of arson with multiple homicide; Rules for determining criminal
liability when both burning and death occur; The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses
are given great weight; Circumstantial evidence present to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt; The
accused shall have a right to an independent counsel during custodial investigation

Facts:

Edna Malngan was charged with the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide of six people. It was alleged
that Edna was seen hurriedly leaving the house of her employer. She boarded a pedicab which was
driven by one named Rolando Gruta who was instructed to send her to Balasan Street. Thirty minutes
later, the Barangay Chairman’s group discovered that a fire gutted at the house of the employer of Edna.
The barangay chairman received a report that one woman was acting suspiciously at Balasan Street, the
woman was later on identified as Edna. The barangay tanods brought her to the barangay hall and upon
inspection, found a disposable lighter inside her bag. Edna confessed to the barangay chairman in the
presence of multitudes of angry residents 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 going home.

Mercedita Mendoza, owner of the one of the burnt houses, went to the fire station to give her sworn
statement. While in the station, she had the opportunity to ask Edna why she did the burning. She gave
the same statement that she gave when she was in the barangay hall. She also said that she burned the
house by crumpling newspapers and lighting them with a disposable lighter. When interviewed by
Carmelita Valdez, a police said that she heard Edna confess and even narrated the manner of how she
accomplished it. The police was able to hear the same confession at his home while watching the
television program “True Crime” hosted by Gus Abelgas also of ABS-CBN. The fire resulted to the death
of Edna’s employers and their four children.

When arraigned, Edna pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. In her demurrer to evidence, she asserts
that the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She claims among others
that the testimonies by the witnesses of the prosection were hearsay, thus inadmissible in evidence.

Held:

There is no complex crime of arson with multiple homicide

| Page 1 of 4
1. The Information in this case erroneously charged Edna with a complex crime, i.e., Arson with Multiple
Homicide. Presently, there are two laws that govern the crime of arson where death results therefrom;
Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659, and Section
5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1613. 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.

Rules for determining criminal liability when both burning and death occur

2. 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 the death, the crime committed is
murder only;

(c) if the objective is 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.

3. In this case, it is clear from the information that her intent was merely to destroy her employer’s house
through the use of fire.

The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses are given great weight

4. The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an important aspect of

evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe them,
particularly their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by
counsels.

| Page 2 of 4
5. In this case, the testimony of one of the owner of the houses, the barangay tanods and the
barangay chairman are disinterested witnesses. Thus, there is an iota of evidence in the records
to indicate that they are suborned witnesses. It was even shown that the barangay chairman kept
Edna from being mauled by the angry crowd outside the barangay hall.

Circumstantial evidence present to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt

6. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the
facts in issue may be established by inference. It is founded on experience and observed facts
and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts
sought to be proved. In order to bring about a conviction, the circumstantial evidence presented
must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing
to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.

7. 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. The
testimony of the pedicab driver, the barangay tanod, the police who heard her confess, of one of
the owners of the burnt houses, leads to the unassailable conclusion that she was the
perpetrator.

The accused shall have a right to an independent counsel during custodial investigation

8. Art. III Sec. 12 of the Constitution provides that any person under investigation for the
commission of the 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.

9. The same 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.

10. Edna’s claim that the confession given to the witnesses, being uncounseled extrajudicial
confessions, should not be admitted is valid only as to the confession given to the barangay
chairman. When she was brought to the barangay hall, she was already a suspect. Thus, there
should be a presence of a counsel. As a result, the lighter, as well as the testimony given to the
barangay chairman are inadmissible. This however does not affect the guilt of Edna as there are
strong evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

| Page 3 of 4
| Page 4 of 4