EN BANC

September

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES ,
Appellee,

G. R. No. 170470
Present:

EDNA M ALNG AN y MAYO,

Appellant.

Promulgated:

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-N AZ ARIO, J .:
The Case
is

Manila,

Branch

the
41,

in

Regional
Criminal

with
Trial
Case

modification

Court
No.

(RTC)

of

01-188424

promulgated on 13 October 2003, finding appellant Edna

September 26, 2006

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

revie w

the Judgment [ 2 ] of

affirming

Malngan y Mayo (Edna) guilt y beyond reasonable doubt of

PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
the crime of Arson wit h Multiple Homicide or Arson
QUISUMBING,
resulting to the death of six (6) people, and sentencing
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
her to suffer the penalt y of death.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUST RIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
The Facts
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
As summarized [ 3 ] by the Court of Appeals, the
TINGA,
antecedent facts are as follows:
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.

- versus -

For

2005,

the Decision

[1]

of

the

Court

of

Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01139 promulgated on 2

Fro m t he p e rso na l a ccou nt of Re m igio

B e rn a rd o, t he Ba ran ga y Ch a irma n in t he a re a , as
we ll a s th e p e rso na l a ccou n t of t he p ed icab d rive r
n am ed Ro la n do G rut a , it wa s at a ro un d 4: 45 a. m.
o n Jan u a ry 2, 20 01 wh e n Re m igio B e rn a rdo a nd
h is ta no d s sa w t he accu sed -a pp e llan t E DNA , o ne
h ire d as a ho usem a id b y Rob e rto Se pa ra , S r.,
wit h h e r he ad tu rn in g in diffe ren t d ire ct io n s,
h u rrie d ly lea vin g t he h ou se of h e r e mp lo ye r at
No . 17 2 Mo de rn a S t ree t , Ba lut , Ton do , Man ila .
S he wa s see n t o ha ve bo a rd e d a pe d ica b wh ich
wa s d rive n b y a p e rso n lat e r ide n t if ied a s
Ro la nd o G rut a . Sh e wa s he a rd b y th e pe d ica b
d ri ve r to h a ve in st ru ct ed th at sh e b e b ro u ght
t o Nipa S t ree t , b ut u po n h e r a rri va l t he re , sh e
cha n ge d he r min d a nd aske d t ha t sh e be b ro u gh t
in ste a d to B a la sa n St re et wh e re sh e f in a lly
a ligh t ed , af t e r pa yin g f o r h e r f are .

Th irt y
m in u te s
la te r,
at
aro un d 5 :1 5
a .m . Ba ra n ga y Ch a irma n Be rn a rd o s gro up la te r
d isco ve re d t ha t a f ire gu t te d t he h ou se of t he
e mp lo ye r of t he ho usem a id . Ba ra n ga y Cha irm a n

B e rn a rd o a nd h is t an od s re spo nd e d t o t he f ire
u po n h ea rin g sh ou t s f rom th e re sid en t s an d
t he re af t e r, f ire me n f ro m t he Fire Dist rict 1 -NCR
a rri ve d at th e f ire scen e to co n ta in th e f ire .
W hen
B a ra n ga y
Cha irm an
B e rn a rdo
re t u rn e d t o t he B a ra n ga y Ha ll, he re ce i ved a
re po rt f ro m p ed icab d rive r Ro la n do G rut a , wh o
wa s a lso a t an od , th at sho rt l y b ef o re th e
o ccu r ren ce of th e f ire , he sa w a wo ma n (t h e
h ou sem a id ) co m in g ou t of t he h ou se a t No . 17 2
Mo de rn a S t re e t , Ba lu t, Tond o , Ma n ila an d he
re ce ive d a ca ll f rom h is wif e te llin g h im of a
wo m a n (th e sam e h ou se ma id ) wh o wa s a ct in g
st ra n ge ly a nd su sp icio u sl y on Ba la san S t ree t .
B a ra n ga y Cha irm a n B e rn a rd o, Ro lan do G ru ta an d
t he o th e r ta no d s p ro ce ed ed to B a la sa n St re et a nd
f o un d t he wo ma n wh o wa s la te r id en t if ie d a s th e
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t. Af te r Ro la nd o G ru ta p o sit ive l y
id en t if ied th e wo m an a s t he sam e p e rso n wh o le f t
No . 17 2 Mo de rn a S t ree t , Ba lut , Ton do , Man ila ,
B a ra n ga y Ch a irma n B e rn a rd o an d h is ta no d s
a pp re he nd ed he r a nd b ro u ght he r t o t he B a ra n ga y
Ha ll f o r in ve st iga t ion . At th e Ba ra n ga y Ha ll,
Me rce d ita Me nd o za , ne igh b o r of Rob e rto S ep a ra ,
S r. an d wh o se ho u se wa s a lso b u rn ed , id en t if ied
t he wo m an a s a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t E DNA wh o wa s
t he ho u se ma id of Rob e rt o S ep a ra, S r. Up on
in spe ct ion , a d ispo sab le ligh t e r wa s f ou nd in sid e
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t
E DNA s
b a g.
The reaf te r,
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t E DNA co nf e ssed to B a ra n ga y
Ch a irma n Be rna rd o in t he p re se n ce of mu lt it ud e s
of a n gry re sid en t s ou t sid e th e B a ran ga y Ha ll t ha t
she se t h e r em plo ye rs ho use on f ire b eca u se she
h ad no t b ee n pa id h e r sa la ry f o r a bo u t a ye a r an d
t ha t she wa n te d t o go h om e t o h e r p ro vin ce bu t
h e r e mp lo ye r to ld h e r to ju st rid e a b roo m st ick in
go in g ho me .
A ccu se d -a pp e lla n t EDNA wa s t he n t u rne d
o ve r
to
arso n
in ve st iga t o rs
h ea de d
by
S [ F]O 4 Dan ilo Talu sa n , wh o b rou gh t he r t o th e
S an
L a za ro
Fire
St a t io n
in
S ta .
Cru z, Ma n ila wh e re she wa s f urt he r in ve st iga t ed
a nd th en d et a in e d.

W hen Me rce d it a Men d o za we nt to t he S an

L a za ro Fire St at io n t o gi ve h e r s wo rn sta t em en t ,
she ha d th e op po rt un it y to a sk a ccu sed - ap pe lla n t
E DNA a t t he la tt e rs d et en t ion ce ll wh y sh e d id t he
b u rn in g of he r em p lo ye rs ho u se a nd accu se d a pp e llan t E DNA rep lie d t ha t she se t t he h ou se on
f ire b e ca u se wh en sh e a ske d p e rm issio n to go
h om e to h e r p ro vin ce , th e wif e of he r e mp lo ye r
Ro be rt o S ep a ra, S r., na me d Virg in ia Se pa ra (sic )
sho u te d at he r: S ige u muw i ka, p ag da t ing mo
ma pu t i ka na . S u ma ka y ka sa w a lis, p ag da t ing mo
ma pu t i ka na (TS N, Jan u a ry 22 , 2 00 2, p .6 ) (G o
a he ad , wh e n yo u a rrive yo u r co lo r wo u ld b e f a ir
a lre ad y. Rid e a b ro o mst ick, wh e n yo u a rri ve yo u r
co lo r wo u ld be f a ir a lre ad y.) And wh en Me rce d it a
Me nd o za a ske d accu sed -a pp e llan t E DNA h o w she
b u rn e d t he ho u se , accu sed -a pp e llan t E DNA t o ld
h e r: Nag lu kot a ko n g
ma ra ming
d iya ryo ,
sin in d ih a n ko ng disp o sa b le lig h te r a t h ina g is ko
sa ib a ba w n g la me sa sa loo b n g b ah a y (T S N,
Jan u a ry 2 2, 2 00 2, p. 7 . ) (I cru mp le d n e wsp ap e rs,
li gh te d t he m wit h a d ispo sa b le ligh t e r a nd t h re w
t he m o n t op of t he ta b le in side t he ho u se . )
W hen in te r vie we d b y Ca rm e lit a Vald e z, a
re po rt e r of AB S -CB N Ne t wo rk, a ccu sed - ap pe lla nt
E DNA wh i le un de r de te n t io n (sic ) wa s h ea rd b y
S FO4 (sic ) Dan ilo Talu sa n a s ha vin g a dm itt e d t he
crim e an d e ve n na rra te d th e m an ne r h o w she
a cco mp lish e d it . S FO 4 (sic ) Da n ilo Talu sa n wa s
a b le to h ea r t he sa me co nf e ssion , t h is t ime a t h is
h om e, wh i le wa t ch in g th e t e le visio n p ro g ram Tru e
Cr ime ho ste d b y G us Abe l ga s also of ABS - CB N
Ne t wo rk.
Th e f ire re su lt e d in [t h e] d est ru ct ion of th e
h ou se of Ro be rt o Se pa ra , S r. an d o th e r ad jo in in g
h ou se s an d th e d ea th of Rob e rt o Se pa ra , S r. an d
Vir gin ia Se pa ra to ge t he r wit h th e ir f ou r (4 )
ch ild ren , na me l y: Mich ae l, Dap h ne , P riscilla an d
Ro be rt o , J r.

On 9

Januar y

2001,

an

Information [ 4 ] was

filed

before the RTC of Manila, Branch 41, charging accused-

appellant

with

the

crime

of Arson

with

Mult iple

W hen arraigned, accused-appellant with assistance

Homicide. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No.

of counsel de oficio, pleaded [ 6 ] Not Guilt y to the crime

01-188424. The accusator y portion of said Information

charged. Thereafter, trial ensued. [ 7 ]

provides:
The
Th at on o r a bo ut Ja nu a ry 2 , 20 01 , in t he
Cit y of Ma n ila , P h ilip p in e s, th e sa id a ccu se d, wit h
in te n t t o ca u se da ma ge , d id th en a nd t he re
wil lf u lly, u n la wf u ll y, f elo n io u sl y an d de libe ra t e ly
se t f ire u po n t he t wo - st o re y re sid en t ia l h ou se of
RO B E RTO SE PARA a nd f am ily mo st l y m ad e of
wo o d en m at e ria ls lo ca te d at No. 1 72 Mo d e rna St . ,
B a lu t , Tond o , th is cit y, b y li gh t in g crum p led
n e wsp ap e r wit h t he use of disp o sa b le ligh t e r
in sid e sa id h ou se kno win g th e sam e to be an
in ha b ite d ho u se an d sit u at ed in a t h ickly
p op u la t ed pla ce an d as a co n se qu e n ce t he re of a
con f la gra t io n e n su ed a nd th e sa id b u ild in g,
t o ge th e r wit h som e se ve n (7 ) a d jo in in g re side n t ia l
h ou se s, we re ra ze d b y f ire; th at b y re a so n a nd o n
t he o cca sio n of th e sa id f ire, th e f ollo win g,
n am e ly,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Rob e rto
S ep a ra,
S r.,
45
ye a rs of a ge
Virg in ia Se pa ra y Me n do za ,
4 0 ye a rs of a ge
Mich ae l S ep a ra , 24 ye a rs of
a ge
Dap hn e Se pa ra , 18 ye a rs of
a ge
P riscilla S ep a ra , 14 ye a rs of
a ge
Rob e rto Se pa ra , Jr., 11 ye a rs
of a ge

su sta in ed b u rn in ju r ie s wh ich we re t he dire ct

cau se of th e ir d ea th imm ed ia te l y t he re af te r. [ 5 ]

prosecution

presented

five

(5)

witnesses,

namely, SPO4 [ 8 ] Danilo Talusan, Rolando Gruta, Remigio

Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza and Rodolfo Movilla to
establish

its

charge

that

accused-appellant

committed the crime of arson with multiple homicide.

Edna

SPO4 Danilo Talusan, arson investigator, testified

that he was one of those who responded to the fire that
occurred on 2 Januar y 2001 and which started at No. 172

A: On Januar y 2 she was intervie wed by the

media, sir. The one who took the
coverage was Carmelita Valdez of
Channel 2, ABS-CBN. They have a
footage that Edna admitted before
them, sir.

killed Roberto Separa, Sr. and all the other members of

Q: And where were you when Edna Malngan

made that statement or admission to
Carmelita Valdez of ABS-CBN?

his family, namely his wife, Virginia, and his children,

A: I was at our office, sir.

Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila. He stated that the fire

Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr.; the fire also

destroyed

their

abode

as

well

as

six

neighboring

houses.He like wise testified that he t wice heard accused-

Q: Was there any other occasion wherein the

accused
made
another
confession
relative to the admission of the crime?

appellant once while the latter was being intervie wed by

A: Yes, sir.

Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN, and the other

Q: W hen was that?

time when it was shown on channel 2 on television during

A: Last Friday, sir. It was shown in True Crime

of Gus Abelgas. She was interviewed at
the Cit y Jail and she admitted that she
was the one who authored the crime,
sir.

the airing of the television program entitled True Crime

hosted by Gus Abelgas confess to having committed the
crime charged, to wit:
P ro s. Re ba ga y:
B a se d o n yo u r in ve st iga t ion , wa s t he re an y
o cca sio n wh en t he accu sed Ed na Ma ln ga n
a dm it te d to th e b u rn in g of th e h ou se of t he
S ep a ra Fa m ily?

x x x x

Pros. Rebagay:
And wher e were you when that admission to
Gus Abelgas was made?
A: I was in the house and I just saw it on tv,
sir.

W itness:
Yes, sir.

Q: W hat was that admission that you heard

personally, when you wer e present,
when the accused made the confession
to Carmelita Valdez?

Pros. Rebagay:
W hen was that?

A: Naglukot po siya ng papel, sinidihan niya

ng lighter at inilagay niya sa ibabaw ng

mesa
niya.

yung

mga

diyaryo

at

sinunog

barangay tanods in the area, testified:

x x x x
Q: Aside from that statement, was there any
other statement made by the accused
Edna Malngan?
A: Yes, sir. Kaya po niya nagawa yon galit po
siya sa kanyang amo na si Virginia,
hindi siya pinasuweldo at gusto na po
niyang umuwi na (sic) ayaw siyang
payagan. Nagsalita pa po sa kanya na,
Sumakay ka na lang sa walis. Pagbalik
mo dito maputi ka na. (sic) Yon po ang
sinabi ng kanyang amo.
Att y. Masweng:
That was a statement of an alleged dead
person, your Honor.
Court:
Sabi ni Valdes, ha?
Pros. Rebagay:
Sabi
ni
Edna
Malngan
Valdez, Your Honor.

Rolando Gruta, the pedicab driver and one of the

Pros. Rebagay:
Mr. W itness, what is your profession?
A: Sidecar driver, sir.
Q: On Januar y 2, 2001 at around 4:45 in the
morning, do you recall where wer e (sic)
you?
A: I was at the corner of Moderna Street, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:
And while you were at the corner
of Moderna St., what happened if any,
Mr. W itness?
A: I saw Edna coming out from the door of the
house of Roberto Separa, sir.
Q: Do you know the number of the house of
the Separa Family?

kay

Car melita

Court:
Double hearsay na yon.
Pros. Rebagay:
No, Your Honor, the witness was present,
Your Honor, when that confession was
made by the accused to Carmelita
Valdez. [ 9 ]

A: 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.

x x x x
Q: And you said you saw Edna coming out
from the house of the Separa Family.
Ho w far is that house from the place
where you were waiting at the corner of
Moderna and Paulino Streets?
A: About three meters from Moderna and
Paulino Streets where m y pedicab was
placed. My distance was about three
meters, sir.
x x x x

Q: And how did you know that the house

where Edna came out is that of the
house of the Separa Family?
A: Mismong nakita po ng dalawang mata ko
na doon siya galing sa bahay ng
Separa Family.

Q: And what did you observe from Edna when

you saw her coming out from the house
of the Separa family?
A: Nagmamadali po siyang
palinga- linga.

lumakad

at

pedicab,

what

x x x x

Q: How long have you known the Separa

Family, if you know them?

Q: After she boarded your

happened, if any?

A: About t wo years, sir.

A: Nagpahatid po siya sa akin .

Q: How about this Edna, the one you just

pointed (to) awhile ago? Do you know
her prior to Januar y 2, 2001?

Q: W here?

A: Yes, sir. I knew(sic) her for t wo years.

Q: Did you bring her to Nipa Street as she

requested?

Court:
W hy?
W itness:
Madalas ko po siyang maging pasahero ng
aking pedicab.
Pros. Rebagay:
Ho w about the Separa family? W hy do you
know them?

A: To Nipa Street, sir.

A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa
Street. W hat happened when you go
(sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?
A: Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga
tatlong minuto po.

A: They wer e the employers of Edna, sir.

Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from
the house of the Separa Family. W hat
happened when you saw Edna coming
out from the house of the Separa
Family?

Q: W hat did she do when she asked (you) to

stop there for three minutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to
bring her directly to Balasan Street, sir.
x x x x

A: Wala pa pong ano yan naisakay ko na siya

sa sidecar.

Q: W hat happened after that?

A: W hen we arrived there, she alighted and

pay (sic) P5.00, sir.

And after that incident, did you come to know

if Edna was apprehended or not?

Q And then what transpired after she alighted

from your pedicab?

x x x x

W itness:
I went home and
passenger, sir.

A: I was called by our Barangay Chairman in

order to identif y Edna, sir.
I

looked

for

another

Pros. Rebagay:
After that, what happened when you wer e on
you wa y to your house to look for
passengers?
A Nakita ko na nga po na pagdating ko sa
Moderna, naglalagablab na apoy.

x x x x[10]

Rem igio Bernardo, Barangay Chairman of the area

where the fire occurred, stated:
Pros. Rebagay:

Q: From what place was that fire coming out?

On Januar y 2, 2001, do you recall if

there is a fire that occurred somewhere
in
your
area
of
jurisdiction,
particularly Moderna Street?

A: From the house of Roberto Separa Fam ily,

sir.
x x x x
Pros. Rebagay:
After you noticed that there was a fire from
the house of Roberto Separa Family,
what did you do if any?
A: Siyempre po, isang Barangay Tanod po
ako, nagresponde na po kami sa sunog.
Binuksan na po ng Chairman naming
yung tangke, binomba na po naming
yung apoy ng tubig.
Q: After that incident, Mr. W itness, have you
seen Edna Again (sic).
A: No, sir.
Pros. Rebagay:

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, where wer e you when this incident
happened?
A: Kasi ugali ko na po tuwing umagangumaga po ako na pupunta sa barangay
Hall mga siguro 6:00 or 5:00 o clock,
me
sumigaw
ng
sunog
nirespondehannamin iyong sunog eh
me dala kaming fire.
Court:
You just answer the question. W here
were you when this incident happened?
W itness:
I was at the Barangay Hall, Your Honor.

Pros. Rebagay:
And you said that there was a fire that
occurred, what did you do?
W itness:
Iyon nga nagresponde kami doon sa
sunog eh nakita ko iyong sunog mukha
talagang
arson
dahil
napakalaki
kaagad, meron pong mga tipong Iyong
namatay po contractor po iyon eh kaya
siguro napakaraming kalat ng mga
pintura, mga container, kaya hindi
po namin naapula kaagad iyong
apoy,
nasunog
ultimo
iyong
fire
tank namin sa lakas, sir.

A: Siyempre hindi naman ako nagtanong kung

sino ngayon may dumating galing na sa
bahay naming, may tumawag, tumawag
po si Konsehala Alfonso na may isang
babae na hindi mapakali doon sa Calle
Pedro Alfonso, ke konsehal na baka ito
sabi
niya
iyong
ganito
ganoon
nirespondehan ko po, sir.
Q: W here did you respond?
A: At Balasan, sir, but its not the area of my
jurisdiction.
x x x x

Pros. Rebagay:
No w, will you please tell us where this fire
occurred?

Q: W hat happened when you reached that

place?

A: At the house of the six victims, sir.

A: Siya po ang nahuli ko doon, sir.

Q: W hose house is that?

Court:
W itness pointing to accused Edna Malngan.

A: The house of the victims, sir.

x x x x
Pros. Rebagay:
You said that you responded to the
place,
what
transpired
after
you
responded to the place?
A: Iyon nga po ang nagsabi may lumabas na
isang babae po noon sa bahay na
nagmamadali habang may sunog, me
isang barangay tanod po akong nagsabi
may humahangos na isang babae na
may dalang bag papunta po roon
palabas ng sasakyan, sir.
Q: And so what happened?

Pros. Rebagay:
And what happened?
A: I brought her to the barangay hall, sir.
Q: And what happened at the barangay hall?
A: Inembestigahan ko, kinuha naming iyong
bag niya, me lighter siya eh. Inamin
niya po sa amin na kaya niya sinunog
hindi siya pinasasahod ng more or less
isang taon na eh. Ngayon sabi ko bakit
eh gusto ko ng umuwi ng probinsya ang
sabi sa akin ng amo ko sumakay na
lang daw po ako ng walis tingting para
makauwi, sir.

Att y. Herman:
We would like to object, Your Honor on
the ground that that is hearsay.
Pros. Rebagay:
That is not a hearsay statement, Your
Honor, straight from the mouth of the
accused.
Att y. Herman:
Its not under the exemption under the
Rules of Court, Your Honor. He is
testif ying according to what he has
heard.
Court:
Thats part of the narration. W hether it
is true or not, thats another matter. Let
it remain.
Pros. Rebagay:
No w, who were present when
accused are telling you this?

the

A: Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan

doon nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog
nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin
ng mga mamamayan para saktan hindi
ko maibigay papatayin siya gawa ng
may namatay eh anim na tao and
namatay,
kaya
iyong
mga
tao
kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya
dahil pin-pointed po siya, Your Honor,
iyong
dami
na
iyon
libo
iyong
nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall
napakahirap
awatin. Gustonggusto siyang kunin ng
mga
taongbayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay
hong nasunog. [ 1 1 ]

For

her

part,

Mercedita

Mendoza,

one

of

the

neighbors of the Separa Family and whose house was one

of those destroyed by the fire, recounted:
Pros. Rebagay:
Madam W itness, on Januar y 2, 2001, do
you recall wher e wer e you residing
then?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: W here were you residing at?
A: At No.
170
Tondo, Manila, sir.

Moderna

St.,

Balut,

Q: W hy did you transfer your residence?

Awhile ago you testified that you are
now residing at 147 Moderna St., Balut,
Tondo, Manila?
A: Because our house was burned, sir.
Q: More or less, how much did the loss
incurred on the burning of your house
(sic)?
A: More or less, P100,000.00, sir
Q: Do you know the accused in this case
Edna Malngan?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: W hy do you know her?
A: She is the house helper of the family who
were (sic) burned, sir.
Q: W hat family?

A: Cifara (sic) family, sir.

W itness:
Edna Malngan, sir.

Q: W ho in particular do you kno w among

Cifara (sic) family?
A: The wom an, sir.

Pros. Rebagay:
W hy do you know that it was Edna Malngan
who burned the house of the Cifara
(sic) family?

Q: W hat is the name?

A: Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic), sir.
Q: Are
you
related
Mendoza Cifara (sic)?

to

Virginia

A: My husband, sir.
Q: W hat is the relationship of your husband to
the late Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)?

Q: How far is your house from the house of

the Cifara (sic) family?
Pader

Q: And so what is your basis in pointing to

Edna Malngan as the culprit or the one
who burned the house of the Cifara
(sic) family?
A: I talked to her when we went there at that
day, sir.

A: They wer e first cousins, sir.

A: Magkadikit lang po.

pagitan.

A: W hen the fire incident happened, sir, on

Januar y 3, we went to San Lazaro Fire
Station and I saw Edna Malngan
detained there, sir.

lang

ang

Q: W hat transpired then?

A: I talked to her and I told her, Edna, bakit
mo naman ginawa yung ganun?
Q: And what was the ans wer of Edna?

Q: You said that Edna Malngan was working

with the Cifara (sic) family. W hat is the
work of Edna Malngan?
A: Nangangamuhan po. House helper, sir.
Q: How long do you know Edna Malngan as
house helper of the Cifara (sic) family?
A: I cannot estimate but she stayed there for
three to four years, sir.
Q: Do you know who caused the burning of
the house of the Cifara (sic) family?

A: She answered, Kasi pag nagpapaalam ako

sa kanyang umuwi ng probinsya,
nagpapaalam po siyang umuwi ng
probinsya ang sinasabi daw po sa
kanya
ni
Baby
Cifara
(sic) na,
(sic)Sige umuwi ka,
pagdating
mo
maputi ka na. Sumakay ka sa walis
pagdating mo maputi ka na.
Pros. Rebagay:
W hat is the basis there that she was the one
who burned the house of the Cifara
(sic) family?

and (c) that the testimonies given by the wit nesses of the

A: I also asked her, Paano mo ginawa yung

sunog? She told me, Naglukot ako ng
maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng
disposable lighter at hinagis niya sa
ibabaw
ng
lamesa
sa
loob
ng
bahay. (sic) [ 1 2 ]

prosecution were hearsay, thus, inadm issible in evidence

against her.
The

prosecution

filed

its Comment/Opposition to

accused- appellants Demurrer to Evidence .

Lastly, the prosecution presented Rodolfo Movilla,
owner

of

the

house

situated

beside

that

of

the Separa family. He testified that his house was also

gutted by the fire that killed the Separa family and that he
tried to help said victims but to no avail.
The

prosecution

presented

other

documentar y

evidence [ 1 3 ] and thereafter rested its case.

W hen it came time for the defense to present
exculpator y
appellant
Evidence

evidence,
filed

[14]

and

Evidence [ 1 5 ] with

instead

a Mot ion
the
the

to

of

doing
Admit

so,

accused-

Demurrer

corresponding Demurrer
former

expressly

stating

to
to
that

said Demurrer to Evidence was being filed x x xwithout

express leave of court x x x. [ 1 6 ]
In

her Demurrer

to

Evidence ,

accused-appellant

asserts that the prosecutions evidence was insufficient to

prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the following
reasons: [ 1 7 ] (a) that she is charged with crime not defined
and penalized by law; (b) that circumstantial evidence was
insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt;

On 13 October 2003, acting on the Demurrer to

Evidence, the RTC promulgated its Judgment [ 1 8 ] wherein it
proceeded to resolve the subject case based on the
evidence

of

the

prosecution.

The

RTC

considered

accused- appellant to have waived her right to present

evidence, having filed the Demurrer to Evidence without
leave of court.

In finding accused- appellant Edna guilt y beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson wit h Multiple
Hom icide, the RTC ruled that:
Th e f irst a rgu me n t of t he a ccu sed t ha t sh e
is cha r ge d wit h an act no t d ef in ed a nd pe na li ze d
b y la w is wit h ou t me rit . x x x t he ca p t ion wh ich
cha r ge s t he a ccu se d wi t h th e crim e of Arson wit h
Mu lt ip le Hom icid e is me re ly d escrip t i ve of th e
cha r ge of Arson th at re su lt ed to Mu lt ip le
Ho m icide . The f act is th at th e accu sed is ch a rge d
wit h Arson wh ich re su lte d to Mu lt ip le Ho m icide
(d ea t h of vict im s) an d th at ch a rge is e mb od ied
a nd sta te d in t he b od y of th e inf o rm a t io n . W hat is
con t ro llin g is th e a lle ga t ion in th e b od y of t he
I nf o rma t ion an d no t th e t it le o r cap t ion th e re of . x
x x.

x x x x
The second and third arguments will be
discussed jointly as they are interrelated with
each other. x x x.
x x x x

[W ]hile there is no direct evidence that points

to the accused in the act of burning the house
or actually starting the subject fire, the
following circumstances that show that the
accused
intentionally
caused
or
was
responsible for the subject fire have been
duly established:
1. that immediately before the burning
of the house, the accused hurriedly and wit h
head turning in different directions (palingalinga) went out of the said house and rode a
pedicab apparently not kno wing where to go x
x x;
2. that immediately after the fire, upon
a report that there was a woman in Balasan
St. who appears confused and apprehensive
(balisa), the Barangay Chairman and his
tanods went there, found the accused and
apprehended her and brought her to the
barangay hall as shown by the testimony of
Barangay Chairman Rem igio Bernardo; and
3. that when she was apprehended and
investigated by the barangay officials and
when her bag was opened, the same
contained a disposable lighter as likewise
shown by the testimony of the Barangay
Chairman.
[T]he timing of her hurried departure and
nervous demeanor immediately before the fire
when she left the house and rode a pedicab
and her same demeanor, physical and mental
condition when found and apprehended at the
same place wher e she alighted from the
pedicab and the discover y of the lighter in her
bag thereafter when investigated indisputably
show her guilt as charged.

If there is any doubt of her guilt that remains

with the circumstantial evidence against her,
the same is removed or obliterated with the
confessions/admissions of the commission of
the offense and the manner thereof that she
made to the prosecution witnesses Barangay
Chairman
Remigio
Bernardo,
Mercedita
Mendoza and to the media, respectively.
x x x x
[H]er confessions/admissions
are
positive
ackno wledgment of guilt of the crime and
appear
to
have
been
voluntarily
and
intelligently
given.
These
confessions/admissions, especially the one
given to her neighbor Mercedita Mendoza and
the media, albeit uncounselled and made
while she was already under the custody of
authorities, it is believed, are not violative of
her right under the Constitution.

The decretal part of the RTCs Judgment reads:

W HEREFORE,
the
Demurrer
to
Evidence is hereby denied and judgment is
hereby rendered finding the accused EDNA
MALNGAN Y MAYO guilt y beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Arson wit h Multiple
Hom icide or Arson resulting to the death of
six (6) people and sentencing her to suffer the
mandator y penalt y of death, and ordering her
to pay the heirs of the victims Roberto
Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa and children
Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr.,
the amount of Fift y Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos for each victim and the amount of One
Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as
temperate damages for their burned house or
a
total
of
Four
Hundred
Thousand

(P400,000.00) Pesos and to Rodolfo Movilla

the amount of One Hundred [Thousand]
(P100,000.00) Pesos.

Due to the death penalt y imposed by the RTC, the

case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic
review.
Conformably
with
our
decision inPeople
[19]
v. Efren Mateo y Garcia,
however, we referred the case
and its records to the CA for appropriate action and
disposition.
On 2 September 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed
with modification the decision of the RTC, the fallo of
which reads:
W HERE FO RE , p re m ise s con sid e red , th e
a ssa ile d O cto b e r 1 3, 2 00 3 Jud gm en t of th e
Re gio n a l Tria l Co u rt of Man ila , B ran ch 4 1, f in d in g
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t E dn a Ma ln ga n y Ma yo gu ilt y
b e yo nd rea so na b le d ou bt of Arso n wit h m ult ip le
h om icid e a nd se n te n cin g h e r t o suff e r t he DE ATH
P E NALTY
is
h e re b y
AFFI RME D
wit h
MO DI FI CATI O N in th at she is f u rth e r o rd e red t o
p a y P 50 ,0 0 0. 00 a s mo ra l d am a ge s an d a no th e r
P 50 ,0 0 0. 0 0 a s e xem p la r y da ma ge s f or e ach of th e
vict im s wh o pe rish ed in t he f ire, to b e pa id to
t he ir he irs. Sh e is o rde re d to pa y Rod o lf o Mo villa ,
o ne wh o se h ou se wa s a lso b u rn ed , th e su m of
P 50 ,0 0 0. 0 0 a s e xem p la r y da ma ge .
P u rsu a nt t o S ect io n 1 3 (a ), Ru le 1 24 of t he
2 00 0 Ru le s of Cr im in a l P ro ced u re a s am en de d b y
A . M. No . 00 -5 -0 3 -S C da te d S ep te mb e r 28 , 20 04 ,
wh ich be ca me effe ct ive o n O cto be r 1 5, 2 00 4, th e
Co u rt of Ap p ea ls, af te r ren de rin g ju d gme n t,
h e re b y ref ra in s f rom m akin g an e nt r y of ju d gme n t
a nd f o rth wit h ce rt if ie s th e ca se an d ele va t e s t he
e nt ire re co rd of t h is ca se to th e S up re me Cou rt
f o r re vie w. [ 2 0 ]

It is the contention of accused-appellant that the

evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to
establish

her

guilt

beyond

reasonable

doubt

as

[22]

and Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1613 [ 2 3 ] ,

quoted hereunder, to wit:

the
Revised Penal Code:

perpetrator of the crime charged. In support of said

exculpator y
errors

[21]

proposition,

she

assigns

the

following

ART. 320. Destructive Arson. x x x x

If as a
consequence
of
the
commission of any of the acts penalized
under
this
Article, death
results ,
the mandator y penalt y of death shall be
imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]

:
I.

T HE HO NO RA B LE CO URT E RRE D I N RUL I NG

T HAT
THE
CI RCUMS TANT IA L
E V I DE NCE
P RE SE NTE D
BY
THE
P RO SE CUT I O N
IS
S UFFI CI E NT TO CO NV I CT THE ACCUS E D; an d

Presidential Decree No. 1613:

SEC. 5. W here Death Results from
Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of
the
arson
death
results ,
the
penalt y
of reclusion perpetua to
death
shall
be
imposed . [Emphasis supplied.]

II.
THE
HONORABLE
COURT
ERRED
IN
ALLOW ING AND GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND UNCOUNSELLED
ADMISSIONS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE
ACCUSED TO THE WITNESSES BARANGAY
CHAIRMAN
REMIGIO
BERNARDO,
MERCEDITA MENDOZA AND THE MEDIA.

Art.

320

of

destructive

the

RPC,

arson,

as

and

amended ,
the

with

provisions

respect
of PD

to
No.

1613 respecting other cases of arson provide only one

THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH
(MULTIPLE) HOMICIDE .

penalty for the commission of arson, whether considered

destructive or otherwise, where death results therefrom.
The raison d'tre is that arson is itself the end and death is

The Infor mation in this case erroneously charged

simply the consequence. [ 2 4 ]

accused- appellant with a complex crime , i.e., Arson with

Mult iple Homicide . Presently, there are t wo (2) la ws that

W hether the crime of arson will absorb the resultant death

govern

or will have to be a separate crime altogether, the joint

the

crime

of

arson

where

death

results therefrom Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code

discussion [ 2 5 ] of

(RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659,

C. Aquino and Mme. Justice Carolina C. Grio-Aquino, on

the

late

Mr.

Chief

Justice

Ramon

the subject of the crimes of arson and murder/homicide, is

particular person who may be in a building or edifice,

highly instructive:

when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such

goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the

Groizard says that when fire is used

with the intent to kill a particular person who
may be in a house and that objective is
attained by burning the house, the crime is
murder only. W hen the Penal Code declares
that killing committed by means of fire is
murder, it intends that fire should be
purposely adopted as a means to that end.
There can be no murder without a design to
take life. [ 2 6 ] In other words, if the main object
of the offender is to kill by means of fire, the
offense is murder. But if the main objective is
the burning of the building, the resulting
homicide may be absorbed by the crime of
arson. [ 2 7 ]

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 t wo
separate and distinct crimes committed homicide/murder
and arson .
W here then does this case fall under?
From a reading of the body of the Information:

x x x x
If the house was set on fire after the victims
therein were killed, fire would not be a
qualif ying circumstance. The accused would
be liable for the separate offenses of murder
or homicide, as the case may be, and arson.
[28]

Accordingly, in cases where both burning and death occur,

in

order

perpetrated

to

determine
whether

what

arson,

crime/crimes
murder

or

was/ were

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

Th at on o r a bo ut Ja nu a ry 2 , 20 01 , in t he
Cit y of Ma n ila , P h ilip p in e s, th e sa id a ccu se d, wit h
in te n t t o ca u se da mag e , d id th en an d th e re
wil lf u lly, un la wf u ll y, f elo n io u sl y a nd d e libe ra te ly
se t f ire u po n th e tw o -sto re y re sid en t ia l h ou se of
RO B E RTO SE PARA a nd f am ily mo st l y m ad e of
wo o d en
m at e ria ls
lo ca te d
at
No.
1 72 Mo de rn a St . , Ba lu t, Ton d o,
th is
cit y,
by
li gh t in g crum p led ne wspa p e r wit h t he use of
d ispo sab le li ght e r in side sa id h ou se kn o win g th e
sam e to be an in h ab it ed h ou se a nd situ a te d in a
t h ickly p op u lat ed p la ce an d a s a co n se qu e n ce
t he re of a co nf la g ra t io n e nsu ed a nd t he sa id
b u ild in g, to ge t he r wi t h so me se ven (7 ) a d jo in in g
re sid en t ia l h ou se s, we re ra ze d b y f ire; t ha t b y
re a so n a nd o n th e occa sion of t he sa id f ire , t he
f o llo win g, na me l y,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Rob e rto S ep a ra, S r., 45 ye a rs of

a ge
Virg in ia S ep a ra y Me nd o za , 4 0
ye a rs of a ge
Mich ae l S ep a ra, 2 4 ye a rs of a ge
Dap hn e Se pa ra , 18 ye a rs of a ge
P riscilla S ep a ra, 1 4 ye a rs of a ge
Rob e rto S ep a ra, Jr., 11 ye a rs of
a ge

found the accused and apprehended

her and brought her to the barangay
hall as shown by the testimony of
Barangay Chairman Rem igio Bernardo;
and

su sta in ed bu rn in ju r ie s wh ich we re th e
d ire ct cau se of th e ir d ea th im me d ia te l y th e re af te r.
[29]
[E mp ha sis su pp lie d .]

accused- appellant is being charged with the crime of

arson. It it is clear from the foregoing that her intent was
merely to destroy her employers house through the use of
fire.
We now go to the issues raised. Under the first
assignment of error, in asserting the insufficiency of the
prosecutions

evidence

reasonable

doubt,

prosecution

was

evidence

hardly

to

establish

accused-appellant
only

able

enough

to

to

her

argues

adduce

prove

guilt

her

beyond
that

the

circumstantial
guilt

beyond

reasonable doubt. She ratiocinates that the following

circumstances:
1.

2.

That immediately before the burning of

the house , the accused hurriedly and
with head turning in different directions
(palinga-linga) went out of the said
house and rode a pedicab apparently
not knowing where to go for she first
requested to be brought to Nipa St. but
upon reaching there requested again to
be brought to Balasan St. as shown by
the testimony of prosecution witness
Rolando Gruta;
That immediately after the fire, upon a
report that there was a wom an in
Balasan St. who appears confused and
apprehensive ( balisa ), the Barangay
Chairman and his tanods went there,

3. That when she was apprehended and

investigated by the barangay officials
and when her bag was opened, the
same contained a disposable lighter as
likewise shown by the testimony of the
Barangay Chairman. [ 3 0 ]
fall short of proving that she had any involvement in
setting her employers house on fire, much less show guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, given that it is a fact that
housemaids are the first persons in the house to wake up
early to perform routine chores for their employers, [ 3 1 ] one
of which is preparing and cooking the morning meal for
the members of the household; and necessit y requires her
to go out early to look for open stores or even nearby
marketplaces to buy things that will complete the early
meal for the day. [ 3 2 ] She then concludes that it was normal
for her to have been seen going out of her employers
house in a hurr y at that time of the day and to look at all
directions to insure that the house is secure and that
there are no other persons in the vicinit y. [ 3 3 ]
We are far from persuaded.
True, by the nature of their jobs, housemaids are
required to start the day early; ho wever, contrar y to said
assertion, the actuations and the demeanor of accused-

appellant

on

that

fateful

early

morning

as

observed

firsthand by Rolando Gruta, one of the wit nesses of the

prosecution, belie her claim of normalcy, to wit:
Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from
the house of the Separa Family. W hat
happened when you saw Edna coming
out from the house of the Separa
Family?
A: Wala pa pong ano yan naisakay ko na siya
sa sidecar .
Q: And what did you observe from Edna when
you saw her coming out from the house
of the Separa family?
A: Nagmamadali po siyang
palinga- linga .

lumakad

at

A: Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga

tatlong minuto po .
Q: W hat did she do when she asked (you) to
stop there for three minutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to
bring her directly to Balasan Street, sir.
x x x x

We quote wit h approval the pronouncement of the

RTC in discrediting accused-appellants aforementioned
rationale:

x x x x
Q: After she boarded your
happened, if any?

Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa

Street. W hat happened when you go
(sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?

pedicab,

what

A: Nagpahatid po siya sa akin .

Q: W here?
A: To Nipa Street, sir.
Q: Did you bring her to Nipa Street as she
requested?

[O]bviously it is never normal, common or

ordinar y to leave the house in such a
disturbed, nervous and agitated manner,
demeanor and condition. The timing of her
hurried departure and nervous demeanor
immediately before the fire when she left the
house and rode a pedicab and her same
demeanor, physical and mental condition
when found and apprehended at the same
place
where
she
alighted
from
the pedicab and the discover y of the lighter in
her
bag
thereafter
when
investigated
indisputably show her guilt as charged. [ 3 4 ]

A: Yes, sir.
x x x x

All
appellants

the

wit nesses

agitated

are

in

appearance

accord

that

was

out

accusedof

the

ordinar y. Remarkably,

she

has

never

denied

namatay,
kaya
iyong
mga
tao
kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya
dahil pin-pointed po siya, Your Honor,
iyong
dami
na
iyon
libo
iyong
nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall
napakahirap
awatin.
Gusting-gusto
siyang kunin ng mga taong-bayan,
nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong
nasunog. [ 3 5 ]

this

observation.
We give great weight to the findings of the RTC and
so accord credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses as it had the opportunit y to observe them
directly. The credibilit y given by trial courts to prosecution
witnesses
appellate

is

an

courts

important
can

rely

aspect
on

of

evidence

because

of

its

which
unique

opportunit y to observe them, particular ly their demeanor,

conduct,

and

examination

attitude,
by

during

the

direct

and

cross-

counsels. Here, Remigio Bernardo,

Rolando Gruta and Mercedita Mendoza

are

disinterested

witnesses and there is not an iota of evidence in the

records to indicate that they are suborned witnesses. The
records of the RTC even show that Rem igio Bernardo,
the Barangay Chairman,
being

mauled

by

the

kept

accused-appellant

angr y

crowd

outside

the barangay hall:

Pros. Rebagay:
No w, who were present when
accused are (sic) telling you this?

from

Accused-appellant has not shown any compelling

reason

wh y

the

witnesses

presented

would

openly,

publicly and deliberately lie or concoct a stor y, to send an

innocent person to jail all the while knowing that the real
malefactor

remains

at

large. Such

proposition

defies

logic. And where the defense failed to sho w any evil or

improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses,
the presumption is that their testimonies are true and thus
entitled to full faith and credence. [ 3 6 ]

of

W hile

the

prosecution

wit nesses

did

not

see

accused- appellant actually starting the fire that burned

several houses and killed the Separa family, her guilt may
the

A: Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan

doon nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog
nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin
ng mga mamamayan para saktan hindi
ko maibigay papatayin siya gawa ng
may namatay eh anim na tao and

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. [ 3 7 ]

Circumstantial

evidence

is

that

which

at Balasan Street ( where Rolando Gruta dropped her off)

proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in

after receiving a call that there was a woman acting

issue may be established by inference.

experience

and

observed

facts

evidence

[38]

It is founded on

and

coincidences

strangely

at

said

street

nowhere

to

go. Third,

and

who

appeared

to

have

SPO4 Danilo Talusan overheard

establishing a connection bet ween the kno wn and proven

accused- appellant admit to Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of

facts and the facts sought to be proved. [ 3 9 ] In order to

Channel 2 (ABS- CBN) that said accused-appellant started

bring about a conviction, the circumstantial evidence

the fire, plus the fact that he was able see the telecast of

presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads

Gus Abelgas show wher e accused-appellant, while being

to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the

intervie wed, confessed to the crime as well. The foregoing

accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilt y person.

testimonies

[40]

ofMercedita Mendoza validating the fact that accused-

juxtaposed

wit h

the

testimony

appellant confessed to having started the fire which killed

In this case, the interlocking testimonies of the

the Separa family

prosecution witnesses, taken together, exemplif y a case

including

where

unbroken

conviction

circumstantial

can

be

upheld

evidence. First,

on

the

prosecution

basis

of

witness

Rolando Gruta, the driver of the pedicab that accused-

that

of

chain,

as

well

the

as

victims,

which

burned

seven

convincingly

leads

to

the

houses
form

an

unassailable

conclusion pinpointing accused-appellant as the person

behind the crime of simple arson.

appellant rode on, testified that he knew for a fact that

she worked as a housemaid of the victims, and that he

In her second assigned error, accused-appellant

positively identified her as the person hurriedly leaving

questions

the house of the victims on 2 Januar y 2001 at 4:45 a.m.,

extrajudicial confession given to prosecution witnesses,

and acting in a nervous manner. That while riding on

namely Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza, and to the

the pedicab,

media.

accused-appellant

was

unsure

of

her

the

admissibilit y

Accused-appellant

Edna

of

her

contends

uncounselled

that

being

intended destination. Upon reaching the place where he

uncounselled extrajudicial confession, her admissions to

originally picked up accused-appellant only a few minutes

having committed the crime charged should have been

after

excluded in evidence against her for being violative of

dropping

theSeparas house

her

off,

being

gutted

fire. Second, Rem igio Bernardo

Rolando Gruta saw

by

testified

a
that

blazing
he

and

his tanods , including Rolando Gruta, were the ones who

picked

up

accused-appellant

Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution.

Edna

Particularly, she takes exception to the testimony of

prosecution witnesses Remigio Bernardo and Mercedita

Mendoza for being hearsay and in the nature of an

as a suspect. [ 4 1 ] Said constitutional guarantee has also

uncounselled admission.

been extended to situations in which an individual has not

been formally arrested but has merely been invited for

W ith the above vital pieces of evidence excluded,

questioning. [ 4 2 ]

accused- appellant is of the position that the remaining

proof of her alleged guilt, consisting in the main of

To be admissible in evidence against an accused,

circumstantial evidence, is inadequate to establish her

the

guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

following requirements:

Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution in part

provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for
the commission of an 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. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided wit h one. These rights
cannot be waived except in wr iting and in the
presence of counsel.

deemed

is

no

as

applying

the barangay tanods,

la w

Article

Constitution.

satisf y

the

including

the

enforcement

officer

III,

12(1)

W hen

Section

accused-appellant

for

purposes

and

(3),

was

of

brought

of
the
to

the barangay hall in the morning of2 Januar y 2001, she

was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the fire
that destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole
family of RobertoSepara, Sr. She was, therefore, already

that

the

abovequoted

under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by

Article III, Section 12(1), of the Constitution should have

provision

applies to the stage of custodial investigation when the

investigation

must

Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance, may be

(3) Any
confession
or
admission
obtained in violation of this Section or Section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence.
held

made

it must be voluntar y;
it must be made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel;
(3)
it must be express; and
(4) it must be in wr iting. [ 4 3 ]

Arguably,

x x x x

have

confessions

(1)
(2)

We partly disagree.

We

extrajudicial

longer

general

inquir y

into

an

unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person

already

been

appellants

observed

confession

or

applied

to

her.

Accused-

to Barangay Chairman

Rem igio

Bernardo was made in response to the interrogation made

by the latter admittedly conducted without first informing
accused- appellant of her rights under the Constitution or

done in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the

authorit y,

confession

appellants uncounselled extrajudicial confession to said

of

accused-appellant,

given

to

Barangay

Chairman Remigio Bernardo, as well as the lighter found

so

appropriately,

accused-

witness was proper ly admitted by the RTC.

by the latter in her bag are inadmissible in evidence

against her as such wer e obtained in violation of her
constitutional rights.

the testimony of SPO4 Danilo Talusan. Contending that

Be that as it may, the inadmissibilit y of accusedappellants

Accused-appellant like wise assails the admission of

confession

to

Barangay

Chairman

Remigio

[ w]hen SPO4 Danilo Talusantestified in court, his stor y is

more

of

events,

which

are

not

within

his

personal

Bernardo and the lighter as evidence do not automatically

knowledge but based from accounts of witnesses who

lead to her acquittal. It should well be recalled that the

derived information allegedly from the accused or some

constitutional safeguards during custodial investigations

other persons x x x. In other words, she objects to the

do not apply to those not elicited through questioning by

the police or their agents but given in an ordinar y manner
whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed
the offense as what happened in the case at bar when
accused- appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of
the neighbors of Roberto Separa, Sr., to having started
the fire in the Separas house. The testimony of Mercedita
Mendoza recounting said admission is, unfortunately for
accused- appellant, admissible in evidence against her and
is not covered by the aforesaid constitutional guarantee.
Article III of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, solely
governs the relationship bet ween the individual on one
hand and the State (and its agents) on the other; it does
not concern itself with the relation bet ween a private
individual and another private individual as both accusedappellant

and

prosecution

undoubtedly are.
to

show

that

[44]

witness MerceditaMendoza

Here, there is no evidence on record

said

witness

was

acting

under

police

testimony for being merely hearsay. W ith this imputation

of inadmissibilit y, we agree with what the Court of Appeals
had to say:
A lt ho u gh
th is
te st imo n y
of
S FO4 Da n ilo Talu san is he a rsa y be ca u se he wa s
n ot
p re sen t
wh e n
G u s Ab e lga s in te r vie we d
a ccu se d -ap pe lla n t E DNA , it m a y n e ve rt he le ss b e
a dm it te d in e vid e n ce a s a n in de pe n de nt l y
re le va n t sta t em en t t o e st ab lish no t th e t ru th b ut
t he t en o r of t he st at em e nt or th e f act t ha t t he
st at em e nt wa s m ad e [ Pe o p le v. Ma lla ri, G. R. No .
1 03 54 7 , Ju ly 20 , 19 99 , 3 10 S CRA 62 1 cit in g
P eo p le v. Cu si, Jr., G. R. No . L-2 09 86 , A u gu st 1 4,
1 96 5,
14
S CRA
94 4. ] .
In P eo p le
vs.
Vela sq ue z, G . R.
No s.
13 26 35
&
14 38 72 7 5, Fe b ru a ry 21 , 20 01 , 3 52 S CRA 4 55 , th e
S up re me Cou rt ru led t ha t :
Un de r
t he
d oct rin e
of
in de pe n de n t ly re le van t sta t em en t s,
re ga rd le ss of th e ir t ru t h o r f a lsit y,
t he f a ct th at su ch sta t em en t s h a ve
b ee n ma de is re le va nt . The h ea rsa y

that one intends the natural consequences of

his act; and when it is sho wn that one has
deliberately set fire to a building, the
prosecution is not bound to produce further
evidence of his wrongful intent. [ 4 7 ]

ru le d oe s n ot a pp l y, an d th e
st at em e nt s
are
a dm issib le
as
e vide n ce . E vide n ce as to t he m akin g
of su ch st at em e nt is n ot se con d a ry
b ut p rim a ry, f o r t he st a te me n t it se lf
m a y con st it ut e a f act in issu e or b e
circu m sta n t ia ll y re le va n t a s to t he
e xist e n ce of su ch a f act. [ 4 5 ]

The ultimate quer y now is which kind of arson is

As

regards

the

confession

given

by

accused-

accused- appellant guilt y of?

appellant to the media, we need not discuss it further for

the reporters were never presented to testif y in court.

As

As a final attempt at exculpation, accused-appellant

previously

discussed,

there

are

t wo

(2)

categories of the crime of arson: 1) destructive arson ,

asserts that since the identities of the burned bodies were

under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by

never conclusively established, she cannot be responsible

Republic

for their deaths.

Presidential Decree No. 1613. Said classification is based

Act

No.

7659;

and

2) simple

arson ,

under

on the kind, character and location of the propert y burned,

Such assertion is bereft of merit.

regardless of the value of the damage caused, [ 4 8 ] to wit:

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

dwelling. Again, in the case of People v. Soriano,

explained that:
Although intent may be an ingredient of
the crime of Arson , it may be inferred from the
acts of the accused. There is a presumption

[46]

or
we

Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code ,

as amended by RA 7659, contemplates the
malicious burning of structures, both public
and private, hotels, buildings, edifices,
trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other
militar y,
government
or
commercial
establishments by any person or group of
persons.[ [ 4 9 ] ] The classification of this t ype of
crime is known as Destructive Arson , which is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
The reason for the law is self-evident: to
effectively
discourage
and
deter
the
commission of this dastardly crime, to prevent
the destruction of properties and protect the
lives of innocent people. Exposure to a
brewing conflagration leaves only destruction

and despair in its wake; hence, the State

mandates greater retribution to authors of
thisheinous crime . The exceptionally severe
punishment imposed for this crime takes into
consideration the extreme danger to human
lives exposed by the malicious burning of
these structures; the danger to propert y
resulting from the conflagration; the fact that
it is normally difficult to adopt precautions
against its commission, and the difficult y in
pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the greater
impact on the social, economic, securit y and
political fabric of the nation. [Emphasis
supplied.]
If as a consequence of the commission
of any of the acts penalized under Art. 320,
death should result, the mandator y penalt y 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
the malicious burning of public and private
structures, regardless of size, not included in
Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659, and
classified as other cases of arson. These
include houses, dw ellings ,
government
buildings,
farms,
mills,
plantations,
railw ays, bus stations, airports, w har ves
and other industrial establishments .[ [ 5 0 ] ]
Although the purpose of the law on Simple
Arson is to prevent the high incidence of fires
and other crimes involving destruction,
protect the national econom y and preserve
the social, econom ic and political stabilit y of
the nation, PD 1613 tempers the penalt y to be
meted
to
offenders.
This
separate
classification of Simple Arson recognizes the
need to lessen the severit y of punishment
commensurate to the act or acts committed,
depending on the particular facts and

circumstances
supplied.]

of

each

case.

[Emphasis

To emphasize:
Th e
n at u re
of
De st ru ct ive
Arso n is
d ist in gu ishe d f ro m S imp le Arson b y t he d e gre e of
p e rve rsit y o r vicio u sn e ss of th e crim ina l offe nd e r.
Th e a ct s com m it te d u nd e r Art . 32 0 of t he Re vise d
P en a l Cod e (a s a me nd ed ) con st it ut in g De st ru ct ive
A rson a re
ch a ra ct e ri ze d
a s he ino u s crime s f o r
b e in g g rie vo u s, od io u s an d ha te f u l offe n se s a nd
wh ich , b y rea son of t he ir inh e ren t o r ma nif e st
wicke dn e ss, vicio u sne ss, at ro cit y an d p e rve rsit y
a re re pu gn an t a nd o ut ra ge o u s to t he co mm on
st an da rd s a nd no rms of d ece n cy a nd mo ra lit y in a
ju st , ci vi lize d a nd o rd e red so cie t y. [ 5 1 ] On th e ot he r
h an d, a ct s com m itt e d u nd e r P D 1 61 3 co n st it u t in g
S imp le Arso n a re crime s wit h a le sse r d e gree of
p e rve rsit y a nd vi ciou sn e ss t ha t th e la w p un ishe s
wit h a le sse r p en a lt y. In o th e r wo rd s, S imp le
A rson con t em p lat e s crim e s wit h le ss sign if ica n t
so cia l, e co no m ic, po lit ica l an d na t io n a l se cu rit y
im p licat io n s th an De st ru ct i ve Arson . Ho we ve r,
a ct s f a llin g u nd e r S im p le Arso n ma y ne ve rt he le ss
b e con ve rt ed int o De st ru ct i ve Arson de pe nd in g on
t he qu a lif yin g circu m st a n ce s p re se nt . [E mp ha sis
sup p lie d. ] [ 5 2 ]

Prescinding from the above clarification vis--vis the

description of the crime as stated in the accusator y
portion of the Information, it is quite evident that accusedappellant was charged with the crime of Simple Arson for
having deliberately
residential

house of

set

fire

ROBERTO

upon

the two-storey

SEPARA

and

family

x x x knowing the same to be an inhabited house and

situated

in

thickly

populated

place

and

as

consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said

building,

together

residential

with

houses,

were

some

seven

ra zed

by

(7)
fire .

adjoining

b e con st ru ed st rict ly a ga in st t he go ve rn me n t, a nd
lib e ra lly in f a vo r of th e a ccu se d.
Th e e le me n t s of a rson un de r Se c. 3, p a r.
2 , of P D 1 61 3 a re: (a ) t he re is int e nt io na l b u rn in g;
a nd (b ) wh a t is in t en t ion a ll y bu rne d is an
in ha b ite d ho u se o r d we llin g. I n cid e nt a ll y, t he se
e lem en t s co n cu r in t he ca se at ba r. [ 5 5 ]

[Emphasis

supplied.]
As stated in the body of the Information, accusedThe facts of the case at bar is somewhat similar to

appellant was charged with having intentionally burned

the facts of the case of People v. Soriano . [ 5 3 ] The accused

the two-storey residential house of Robert Separa. Said

in the latter case caused the burning of a particular

conflagration like wise spread and destroyed seven (7)

house. Unfortunately, the blaze spread and gutted down

five (5) neighboring houses. The RTC therein found the
accused
1

[54]

by

guilt y

of

destructive

arson

under

paragraph

adjoining houses .

Consequently, if

proved,

as it

was

proved, at the trial, she may be convicted, and sentenced

accordingly, of the crime of simple arson . Such is the
case not wit hstanding the error in the designation of the

of Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended

offense

Republic

effective insofar as it states the facts constituting the

Act

No.

7659. This

Court,

through

Justice Bellosillo, ho wever, declared that:

Mr.

in

the

information,

the

information

remains

crime alleged therein. [ 5 6 ] W hat is controlling is not the title

of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense

x x x [ T] he ap p licab le p ro visio n of la w sh ou ld be
S e c. 3, p a r. 2 , of P D 1 61 3 , wh ich im po se s a
p en a lt y
of
re clu sio n
t em po ra l
to
re clu sion p e rp e tu a f or ot he r ca se s of a rso n a s th e
p rop e rt ie s
b u rn ed
by
a ccu se d -a pp e llan t
a re spe ci fi c al l y
des c ri be d a s
h ou se s,
con t em p lat in g inh a b ite d h ou se s o r d we llin gs
u nd e r t he af o re sa id la w. The de scrip t ion s as
a lle ge d in t he se co n d Ame nd ed Inf o rm at io n
p a rt icu la rl y re f e r to th e st ru ct u re s a s ho use s
ra t he r t ha n a s bu ild in gs o r ed if ice s. The
a pp lica b le la w sho u ld th e ref o re b e Se c. 3, P a r. 2 ,
of P D 1 61 3, an d n ot Art . 32 0, p a r. 1 of th e Pe na l
Co de . I n ca se of am b igu it y in con st ru ct ion of
p en a l la ws, it is we ll -se tt le d t ha t su ch la ws sh a ll

charged or the particular la w or part thereof allegedly

violate, x x x, but the description of the crime charged and
the particular facts therein recited. [ 5 7 ]
There
imposed

by

is,
the

thus,
RTC

need
as

to

Sec.

modif y
5

of

PD

the

penalt y

No.

1613

categorically provides that the penalt y to be imposed for

simple arson is:

SEC. 5. W here Death Results from

Arson. - If by reason of or on the occasion of
arson
death
results,
the
penalt y
of reclusion perpetua to
death shall
be
imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]

the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to

disturb the findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
It is indubitable that accused- appellant is the author of
the crime of simple arson. All the circumstantial evidence
presented before the RTC, vie wed in its entirety, is as

Accordingly,

there

being

no

aggravating

circumstance alleged in the Information, the imposable

penalt y on accused-appellant is reclusionperpetua .

current jurisprudence [ 5 8 ] dictate that the civil indemnit y

due from accused- appellant is P 50,000.00 for the death of
each of the victims. [ 5 9 ] Ho wever, the monetar y awards for
moral and exemplar y damages given by the Court of
Appeals, both in the amount of P 50,000.00, due the heirs
of the victims, have to be deleted for lack of material
basis. Similarly, the Court of Appeals award of exemplar y
damages to Rodolfo Movilla in the amount of P 50,000.00
the

destruction

of

his

house,

also

has

to

be deleted, but in this instance for being improper. Moral

damages cannot be award by this Court in the absence of
proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the
heirs of the victims. [ 6 0 ] Concerning the award of exemplar y
damages,

the reason

for

the deletion being

that

accused- appellants
concurrently

innocence,

no

aggravating circumstance had been alleged and proved by

the prosecution in the case at bar. [ 6 1 ]
To summarize, accused-appellants alternative plea
that she be acquitted of the crime must be rejected. W ith

reasonable
conviction

when

considered

her admission

given

the formers guilt

beyond

wit h

to Mercedita Mendoza,

Apropos the civil liabilities of accused-appellant,

for

convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negates

doubt
is

is

t wice

effectively

and

as

evident. Hence,

justified. More

so,

as

her
it

is

propitious to note that in stark contrast to the factual

circumstances presented by the prosecution, accusedappellant neither mustered a denial nor an alibi except for
the proposition that her guilt had not been established
beyond reasonable doubt.
IN VIEW W HEREOF, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 2 September 2005, in CA G.R. CR HC No.
01139, is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of
accused- appellant

EDNA

MALNGAN Y MAYO

is

concerned. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of

damages to be awarded, however, are MODIFIED. In
accordance wit h Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1613,
accused- appellant is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION
PERPETUA . Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay
the heirs of each of the victims P 50,000.00 as civil
indemnit y.

SO ORDERED.