Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

TWELFTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

BUESER D.Q.,
- versus - Chairperson
FIEL-MACARAIG, G.C., and
*
LAUIGAN, R.R.R., JJ.
MHAR CASIPI y FLORES,
Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:
March 3, 2021

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
BUESER, J.:

On appeal1 is the Decision dated February 26, 2019 2 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City in Criminal Case No.
R-QZN-17-13522-CR finding accused-appellant Mhar Casipi y Flores
guilty of the crime of Simple Arson.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

Mhar Casipi y Flores (Casipi) was charged with arson defined

and penalized under Paragraph 2, Section 3 of Presidential Decree
No. 1613 (PD 1613)3 in an Information4 that reads:

*
Acting Third Member per Office Order No. 16-21-RSF dated 22 February 2021.
1
Rollo, pp. 38-53.
2
Records, pp. 86-99.
3
Otherwise known as “Amending the Law on Arson”.
4
Records, pp. 1-2.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 2 -
_________________________________________________________________________

That on or about the 6th day of November 2017, in Quezon

City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously deliberately and maliciously set on fire his
inhabited house located at No. 43 Kabalitang St., Brgy. Krus na
Ligas, this city, a populated or congested area under circumstances
which exposed to danger the lives of his neighbours MARVIN
BAUTISTA y DEL ROSARIO, ELMER SALVACION y MUSWETO,
HENORIO DIMSON y GESULA and EDGAR GARANIA y PASTOR
and caused damages to their properties, to the damage and
prejudice of the said offended parties.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon arraignment, Casipi pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued.

For the prosecution, Henorio Dimson (Dimson) testified that at

around 12:00 in the afternoon of November 6, 2017, while he was
eating with his workmates in his house located at Barangay Krus na
Ligas, Quezon City, he heard Casipi shouting “susunugin ko ang mga
tao dito!” and “damay damay na ito, susunugin ko ang lugar na ito”,
while the latter was having a drinking session with Elmer Salvacion
inside his own house. Dimson explained that since his house
immediately adjoins the house of Casipi, he could clearly and easily
hear the the latter shouting. When he saw that Casipi threw
something at Elmer, who was then sweeping the glass bottles that
were shattered by Casipi, Dimson decided to leave the house and go
back to work to avoid trouble. At around 2:30 in the afternoon of the
same day, Dimson was fetched by his nephew, Marco, who informed
him that his house was on fire. Immediately, they returned to
Dimson's house and discovered that it was indeed on fire. Upon
inquiring from his neighbors, Dimson learned that Casipi initially set
his own house on fire, which later on affected the nearby houses,
including Dimson's house.5

In his recollection, Marvin Bautista (Bautista), also a neighbor of

Casipi, recalled that he was with his children at the top level of his
house when he saw Casipi in a middle of drinking session and was
breaking glass bottles as he was already drunk. At that moment,
Bautista decided to bring his children to a safer place; only to find out
upon his return that his house was ablaze and saw Casipi coming out

5
TSN dated August 1, 2018; Records, pp. 14-15..
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 3 -
_________________________________________________________________________

of his house which was already on fire.6

It was also recalled by Barangay Peace and Security Officer

Adrian Manuel (BPSO Manuel) that at around 3:00 in the afternoon of
the same day, he received a report that there was a commotion at
Kabalitang St., Barangay Krus na Ligas. Upon arrival at the area,
BPSO Manuel saw that several houses were on fire, including the
house of Casipi. After the fire was controlled and extinguished by the
responding firemen, BPSO Manuel and the Barangay Officials
received another report of disturbance involving Casipi who was
found on board a fire truck trying to escape from his angry neighbors
who were pointing him as the person responsible for the burning of
their houses. BPSO Manuel then arrested Casipi as the suspect in
the arson case filed against him by his neighbors. 7

Another prosecution witness, Edgar Garania (Garania), testified

that at around 12:00 o'clock in the afternoon on the day of the
incident, he was on his way home when he saw a drunk Casipi
breaking glass bottles outside his house. While doing this, Garania
heard Casipi shouting “Damay-damay na ito, susunugin ko ito!”.
Afterwards, Garania went back to the Teachers Village Barangay
Hall. There, when he heard sirens coming from the fire trucks which
he followed by motorcycle and learned that the burning house was in
the compound in No. 43 Kabalitang Street, where he was residing.
Upon parking his motorcycle, Garania immediately went inside his
house and saw his neighbors were trying to extinguish the fire that
was getting bigger. He then learned from his neighbors that it was
Casipi who caused the fire when he put his own house on fire which
affected the adjoining houses.8

In his defense, Casipi denied the accusations against him and

posited that in the afternoon of November 6, 2016, he was having a
drinking session with his friend, Elmer Salvacion. Thereafter, he left
his house and went to his brother's house at UP Amorsolo in Quezon
City. When he returned to his house, he was shocked to see his place
on fire. Casipi further recalled that his neighbor, Dimson, suddenly
punched him and blamed him for starting the fire. Subsequently, he
6
TSN dated June 18, 2018; Records, pp. 12-13.
7
TSN dated March 26, 2018.
8
TSN dated August 1, 2018; Records, pp. 14-15.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 4 -
_________________________________________________________________________

was apprehended by the officers of the Bureau of Fire Protection and

was eventually turned over to Police Station 9. 9

THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT

In its Decision dated February 26, 2019, 10 the trial court found
Casipi guilty of Simple Arson, to wit:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding

accused MHAR CASIPI y FLORES, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for Simple Arson and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Eight (8) years
and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Twenty Years of
Reclusion Perpetua as maximum; and to pay the cost.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, Casipi filed this appeal11 anchored on the following

grounds:

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF SIMPLE ARSON BASED ON
DEVIOUS AND INSUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BY GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE INCREDULOUS AND INCONSISTENT
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSES OF DENIAL AND ALIBI
DESPITE THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE.

In maintaining his innocence, Casipi argues that the

circumstantial evidence submitted by the prosecution failed to prove
9
TSN dated November 20, 2018.
10
Records, pp. 86-99.
11
Rollo, pp. 38-53.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 5 -
_________________________________________________________________________

his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

THIS COURT'S RULING

The appeal is without merit.

In the prosecution for arson, the following elements are required

to be established: (1) a fire was set intentionally; and (2) the accused
was identified as the person who caused it. 12 Specific to this case, the
elements of simple arson under Section 3 (2) of PD 1613 13 are: (a)
there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an
inhabited house or dwelling.14 In arson, the corpus delicti rule is
satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been
intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single
eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to
warrant conviction.15

Here, while the photographs16 offered in evidence showing the

burnt remains of the houses established the occurrence of the fire,
there is no direct evidence to establish the culpability of Casipi.
Nevertheless, jurisprudence has settled that it is not only by direct
evidence that the accused may be convicted of the crime charged. 17
12
People v. Dolendo Fediles, G.R. No. 223098, June 3, 2019.
13
Section 3 of PD 1613 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:
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;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard,
bamboo grove or forest;
4. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
5. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
14
People v. Alamada Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013.
15
People v. Dolendo Fediles, G.R. No. 223098, June 3, 2019.
16
Records, pp. 65-71.
17
Kyle Anthony Zabala v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015;
Gilfredo Bacolod v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013; People of the
Philippines v. Danilo Asis, G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002; People v. Ayola, G.R. No.
138923, September 4, 2001; People v. Icalla, 353 SCRA 805, March 7, 2001; People v. Oliva,
349 SCRA 435, January 18, 2001; People v. Felixminia, GR No.125333, March 30, 2002;
People v. Gallo, GR No. 133002, October 19, 2001.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 6 -
_________________________________________________________________________

The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial

evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is
that evidence “which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an
inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established.”18 Thus, conviction may be warranted on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, provided that (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inference derived are
proven; (3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 19 With respect to the
third requisite, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a
fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused to the
exclusion of others, as the guilty person.20

A careful review of the records reveals the following

circumstances which established an unbroken chain of events
leading to the logical conclusion that Casipi started the fire which
burned his house, and consequently affected the adjoining houses:
first, at around 12:00 in the afternoon of November 6, 2017, Casipi
was engaged in a drinking spree with Elmer Salvacion at his house at
No. 43 Kabalitang Street., Barangay Cruz Na Ligas, Quezon City;
second, his neighbors, Henorio Dimson and Edgar Garania, heard
Casipi, who was then already drunk and was reacting violently by
throwing glass bottles, shouting “Susunugin ko ang mga tao dito” and
“Damay damay na ito, susunugin ko ang lugar na ito”;21 third, that
when the fire in Casipi's house was ongoing, another neighbor,
Marvin Bautista, saw Casipi went out of his house; 22 fourth, it was
only after the fire was extinguished that Casipi returned to his house;
and fifth, during trial, Casipi put up an alibi, but failed to present any
witnesses to corroborate his defense.

In addition, We cannot simply disregard the Crime Report

issued by the Investigation and Intelligence Section of the Bureau of
Fire Protection, Quezon City Fire District23 which pointed out that
there were traces that fire originated at the ground floor of Casipi's
18
Jose Espineli v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179535, June 9, 2014.
19
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
20
Kyle Anthony Zabala v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015.
21
TSN dated August 8, 2018, pp. 6-7; 18.
22
TSN dated June 18, 2018.
23
Records, pp. 5-7.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 7 -
_________________________________________________________________________

house where he was seen burning his clothes with the use of a
lighter; and that the second floor of his house was totally gutted by
fire and affected the three adjoining residential houses of Dimson,
Bautista and Garania. Needless to stress, the investigation reports
and findings carry the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed as government officials are presumed to perform
their functions with regularity and strong evidence is necessary to
rebut this presumption.24 Accordingly, while nobody directly saw
Casipi burn his house, these circumstances yields to a rational
conclusion that the fire which caused the burning of the houses was
authored by Casipi.

Concomitantly, Casipi's attempt to challenge the credibility of

the witnesses fails to impress. On matters involving the credibility of
witnesses, it is settled that the trial court is in the best position to
assess the credibility of witnesses since it has observed firsthand
their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.
Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence
which would appear to have been overlooked and, if considered,
could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and
assessment on the credibility of a witness made by the trial court
remain binding on an appellate tribunal. 25 Thus, there is simply no
reason to digress from the findings of the trial court.

Finally, the categorical testimonies offered by the prosecution

prevail over Casipi's uncorroborated denial and alibi, which is a
negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. For
a defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he
was at some other place the time of the commission of the crime, but
also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus
criminis or within its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission. 26
Thus, the requirements of time and place must strictly be met. In this
case, Casipi failed to establish that it was physically impossible for
him to be at his house at No. 43 Kabalitang Street, Barangay Cruz Na
Ligas, Quezon City when the fire was started. While he maintained
that he was at his brother's house at U.P. Amorsolo, no witness was
presented to corroborate his claim. More so, these two places are not
24
People v. Hon. Basilio R. Gabo, et al., G.R. No. 161083, August 3, 2010.
25
People v. Jessie Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010.
26
People v. Hatsero, G.R. No. 192179, July 3, 2013.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 8 -
_________________________________________________________________________

far away located as Casipi himself admitted that the distance

between the two places was only a minute or two away, or at least
fifty (50) to a hundred (100) meters. 27 Indubitably, it was not physically
impossible for Casipi to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.

In sum, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the

lower court, as they are fully supported by evidence on record. It
must be stressed that in a criminal case, factual findings of the trial
court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal,
especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence
on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the
trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court
will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below.
More so, the RTC's findings in criminal prosecution is afforded great
weight and respect because it is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 28

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed

Decision dated February 26, 2019 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
215, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-17-13522-CR is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DANTON Q. BUESER
Associate Justice

27
TSN dated November 20, 2018.
28
Anita Miranda v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12710
DECISION Page - 9 -
_________________________________________________________________________

WE CONCUR:

GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG
Associate Justice

RAYMOND REYNOLD REYES LAUIGAN

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.

DANTON Q. BUESER
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twelfth Division