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 appellant’s 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 Murcia’s 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 court’s 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:

T o s u m 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 r n a ti v e p l e a t h a t s h e b e a c q u i tt e d o f t h e c r i m e m u s t b e
r e j e c t e d . W i t h t h e e v i d e n c e o n r e c o r d , w e fi n d n o c o g e n t r e 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 R T C
and the Court of Appeals.   It is indubitable that accused-appellant is the author of the crime of
s i m p l e a r s o n . A l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n ti a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e t h e R T C , v i e w e d i n i t s e n ti r e t y , i s a s
convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negates accused-appellants innocence, and when
considered concurrently with her admission given to Mercedita Mendoza, the formers guilt beyond
r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t i s t w 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 ti o n i s e ff e c ti v e l y j u s ti fi e d . M o r e s o , a s i t i s
p r o p i ti 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 r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p r o s e c u ti 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 r e d a d e n i a l n o r a n al i b i e x ce p t f o r t h e p r o p o s i ti o n t h a t h e r g u i l t
had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

A r ti c l e 3 2 0 o f T h e R e vi s e d P e n a l C o d e , a s a m e n d e d b y R A 7 6 5 9 , c o n t e m p l a t e s
t h e m al i c i o u s b u r n 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 e l s , a i r c r a ft , f a c t o r i e s a n d o t h e r m i l i t a r y , g ov e r n m e n t o r
c o m m e r c i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s b y a n y p e r s o n o r g r o u p o f p e r s o n s . T h e cl a s s i fi c a ti 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 ti 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 r e a s o n f o r t h e l a w i s s e l f - e v i d e n t : t o e ff e c ti 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 r d l y c r i m e , t o p r e v e n t t h e d e s t r u c ti o n o f
p r o p e r ti e s a n d p r o t e c t t h e l i v e s o f i n n o c e n t p e o p l e . E x p o s u r e t o a b r e w i n g
c o n fl a g r a ti o n l e a v e s o n l y d e s t r u c ti o n a n d d e s p a i r i n i t s w a k e ; h e n c e , t h e S t a t e
m a n d a t e s g r e a t e r r e t r i b u ti 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 e x c e p ti o n a l l y
s e v e r e p u n i s h m e n t i m p o s e d f o r t h i s c r i m e t a k e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a ti o n t h e e x t r e m e
danger to human lives exposed by the malicious burning of these structures; the
d a n g e r t o p r o p e r t y r e s u l ti n g f r o m t h e c o n fl a g r a ti o n ; t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s n o r m a l l y
d i ffi c u l t t o a d o p t p r e c a u ti 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 ti n g t h e p e r p e t r a t o r s ; a n d , t h e g r e a t e r i m 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 a n d p o l i ti c a l f a b r i c o f t h e n a ti o n .

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
t h e m al i c i o u s b u r n 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 r e s , r e g a r d 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 R A 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 e s , d w e l l i n g s , g ov e r n m e n t b u i l d i n g s , f a r m s , m i l l s , p l a n t a ti o n s ,
r a i l w a y s , b u s s t a ti 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 a w o n S i m p l e A r s o n i s t o p r e v e n t t h e h i g h i n ci d e n c e o f
fi r e 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 ti o n , p r o t e c t t h e n a ti o n a l e c o n o m y a n d
p r e s e r v e t h e s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i ti c a l s t a b i l i t y o f t h e n a ti o n , P D 1 6 1 3 t e m p e r s
t h e 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 ti o n o f S i m p l e A r s o n
r e 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 se v e r i t y o f p u n i s h m e n t c o m m e n s u r a t e t o t h e a c t o r
a c t s c o m m i tt e d , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e p a r ti c u l a r f a c t s a n d ci r c 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.