G. R. No - PDF People Vs Malngan

8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
ENBANC
PEOPLE
OF
THE
G.R.No.170470
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
Present:
PANGANIBAN,C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CORONA,
versus
CARPIOMORALES,
CALLEJO,SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICONAZARIO,
GARCIA,and
VELASCO,JR.,JJ.
Promulgated:
EDNAMALNGANyMAYO,
Appellant.
September26,2006
xx
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
TheCase
For review is the Decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR HC
No. 01139 promulgated on 2 September 2005, affirming with modification the

Judgment
[2]
oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManila,Branch41,inCriminal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.%20R.%20No.%20170470.htm
1/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Case No. 01188424 promulgated on 13 October 2003, finding appellant Edna

Malngan y Mayo (Edna) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson
with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to the death of six (6) people, and
sentencinghertosufferthepenaltyofdeath.
TheFacts
As summarized
[3]
by the Court of Appeals, the antecedent facts are as
follows:
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 accusedappellant 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 BalasanStreet where
shefinallyalighted,afterpayingforherfare.
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
District1NCRarrivedatthefirescenetocontainthefire.
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)
comingoutofthehouseatNo.172ModernaStreet,Balut,Tondo,Manilaandhe
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 accusedappellant. 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 accusedappellant EDNA
who was the housemaid of Roberto Separa, Sr. Upon inspection, a disposable
lighter was found inside accusedappellant 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
yearandthatshewantedtogohometoherprovincebutheremployertoldherto
justrideabroomstickingoinghome.
2/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Accusedappellant 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 accusedappellant EDNA at the
latters detention cell why she did the burning of her employers house and
accusedappellant 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 accusedappellant EDNA how she
burned the house, accusedappellant EDNA told her: Naglukot ako ng maraming
diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis ko sa ibabaw ng lamesa
saloobngbahay (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 ABSCBN Network,

accusedappellant 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
CrimehostedbyGusAbelgasalsoofABSCBNNetwork.
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
andRoberto,Jr.
On 9 January 2001, an Information
[4]
was filed before the RTC of Manila,
Branch 41, charging accusedappellant with the crime of Arson with Multiple
Homicide. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01188424. The
accusatoryportionofsaidInformationprovides:
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

said accused, with intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately set fire upon the twostorey residential
house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made of wooden materials
located at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting crumpled
newspaperwiththeuseofdisposablelighterinsidesaidhouseknowingthesame
to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a
consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with
some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire that by reason
andontheoccasionofthesaidfire,thefollowing,namely,
3/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
1. RobertoSepara,Sr.,45yearsofage
2. VirginiaSeparayMendoza,40yearsofage
3. MichaelSepara,24yearsofage
4. DaphneSepara,18yearsofage
5. PriscillaSepara,14yearsofage
6. RobertoSepara,Jr.,11yearsofage
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death immediately
[5]
thereafter.
When arraigned, accusedappellant with assistance of counsel de oficio,

pleaded
[6]
NotGuiltytothecrimecharged.Thereafter,trialensued.
[7]
The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely, SPO4
[8]
Danilo
Talusan, Rolando Gruta, Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza and Rodolfo

Movilla to establish its charge that accusedappellant Edna committed the crime
ofarsonwithmultiplehomicide.
SPO4 Danilo Talusan, arson investigator, testified that he was one of those
who responded to the fire that occurred on 2 January 2001 and which started at
No.172ModernaSt.,Balut,Tondo,Manila.He stated that the fire killed Roberto
Separa, Sr. and all the other members of his family, namely his wife, Virginia,
and his children, Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr. the fire also
destroyedtheirabodeaswellassixneighboringhouses.Helikewisetestifiedthat
he twice heard accusedappellant once while the latter was being interviewed by
Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABSCBN, and the other time when it was shown
on channel 2 on television during the airing of the television program entitled
True Crime hosted by Gus Abelgas confess to having committed the crime
charged,towit:
Pros.Rebagay:
Based on your investigation, was there any occasion when the accused
EdnaMalnganadmittedtotheburningofthehouseoftheSeparaFamily?
xxxx
Witness:
Yes,sir.
4/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Pros.Rebagay:
Whenwasthat?
A: On January 2 she was interviewed by the media, sir. The one who took the
coverage was Carmelita Valdez of Channel 2, ABSCBN. They have a
footagethatEdnaadmittedbeforethem,sir.
Q:AndwherewereyouwhenEdnaMalnganmadethatstatementoradmissionto
CarmelitaValdezofABSCBN?
A:Iwasatouroffice,sir.
Q: Was there any other occasion wherein the accused made another confession
relativetotheadmissionofthecrime?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Whenwasthat?
A: Last Friday, sir. It was shown in True Crime of Gus Abelgas. She was
interviewed at the City Jail and she admitted that she was the one who
authoredthecrime,sir.
Pros.Rebagay:
AndwherewereyouwhenthatadmissiontoGusAbelgaswasmade?
A:IwasinthehouseandIjustsawitontv,sir.
Q: What was that admission that you heard personally, when you were present,
whentheaccusedmadetheconfessiontoCarmelitaValdez?
A: Naglukot po siya ng papel, sinidihan niya ng lighter at inilagay niya sa

ibabawngmesayungmgadiyaryoatsinunogniya.
xxxx
Q:Asidefromthatstatement,wasthereanyotherstatementmadebytheaccused
EdnaMalngan?
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
kanyangamo.
Atty.Masweng:
Thatwasastatementofanallegeddeadperson,yourHonor.
Court:
SabiniValdes,ha?
Pros.Rebagay:
SabiniEdnaMalngankayCarmelitaValdez,YourHonor.
5/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Court:
Doublehearsaynayon.
Pros.Rebagay:
No, Your Honor, the witness was present, Your Honor, when that confession was
[9]
madebytheaccusedtoCarmelitaValdez.
Rolando Gruta, the pedicab driver and one of the barangay tanods in the
area,testified:
Pros.Rebagay:
Mr.Witness,whatisyourprofession?
A:Sidecardriver,sir.
Q:On January 2, 2001 at around 4:45 in the morning, do you recall where were
(sic)you?
A:IwasatthecornerofModernaStreet,sir.
Pros.Rebagay:
And while you were at the corner of Moderna St., what happened if any,
Mr.Witness?
A:IsawEdnacomingoutfromthedoorofthehouseofRobertoSepara,sir.
Q:DoyouknowthenumberofthehouseoftheSeparaFamily?
A:172ModernaSt.,Balut,Tondo,Manila,sir.
xxxx
Q:And you said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family.
How far is that house from the place where you were waiting at the corner
ofModernaandPaulinoStreets?
A:About three meters from Moderna and Paulino Streets where my pedicab was
placed.Mydistancewasaboutthreemeters,sir.
xxxx
Q: And how did you know that the house where Edna came out is that of the
houseoftheSeparaFamily?
A: Mismong nakita po ng dalawang mata ko na doon siya galing sa bahay ng

SeparaFamily.
Q:HowlonghaveyouknowntheSeparaFamily,ifyouknowthem?
A:Abouttwoyears,sir.
6/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Q:How about this Edna, the one you just pointed (to) awhile ago? Do you know
herpriortoJanuary2,2001?
A:Yes,sir.Iknew(sic)herfortwoyears.
Court:
Why?
Witness:
Madalaskoposiyangmagingpasaherongakingpedicab.
Pros.Rebagay:
HowabouttheSeparafamily?Whydoyouknowthem?
A:TheyweretheemployersofEdna,sir.
Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family.
What happened when you saw Edna coming out from the house of the
SeparaFamily?
A:Walapaponganoyannaisakaykonasiyasasidecar.
Q:And what did you observe from Edna when you saw her coming out from the
houseoftheSeparafamily?
A:Nagmamadaliposiyanglumakadatpalingalinga.
xxxx
Q:Aftersheboardedyourpedicab,whathappened,ifany?
A:Nagpahatidposiyasaakin.
Q:Where?
A:ToNipaStreet,sir.
Q:DidyoubringhertoNipaStreetassherequested?
A:Yes,sir.
xxxx
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What happened when you go
(sic)thereatNipaStreet,ifany?
A:Nagpahintoposiyadoonngsaglit,mgatatlongminutopo.
Q:Whatdidshedowhensheasked(you)tostopthereforthreeminutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to bring her directly to Balasan Street,
sir.
xxxx
7/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Q:Whathappenedafterthat?
A:Whenwearrivedthere,shealightedandpay(sic)P5.00,sir.
QAndthenwhattranspiredaftershealightedfromyourpedicab?
Witness:
IwenthomeandIlookedforanotherpassenger,sir.
Pros.Rebagay:
After that, what happened when you were on you way to your house to look for
passengers?
ANakitakonangaponapagdatingkosaModerna,naglalagablabnaapoy.
Q:Fromwhatplacewasthatfirecomingout?
A:FromthehouseofRobertoSeparaFamily,sir.
xxxx
Pros.Rebagay:
After you noticed that there was a fire from the house of Roberto Separa Family,
whatdidyoudoifany?
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
namingyungapoyngtubig.
Q:Afterthatincident,Mr.Witness,haveyouseenEdnaAgain(sic).
A:No,sir.
Pros.Rebagay:
Andafterthatincident,didyoucometoknowifEdnawasapprehendedornot?
xxxx
A:IwascalledbyourBarangayChairmaninordertoidentifyEdna,sir.
[10]
xxxx
Remigio Bernardo, Barangay Chairman of the area where the fire occurred,
stated:
Pros.Rebagay:
On January 2, 2001, do you recall if there is a fire that occurred

somewhereinyourareaofjurisdiction,particularlyModernaStreet?
8/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Now,wherewereyouwhenthisincidenthappened?
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
nirespondehannaminiyongsunogehmedalakamingfire.
Court:
You just answer the question. Where were you when this incident
happened?
Witness:
IwasattheBarangayHall,YourHonor.
Pros.Rebagay:
Andyousaidthattherewasafirethatoccurred,whatdidyoudo?
Witness:
Iyonnganagrespondekamidoonsasunogehnakitakoiyongsunogmukha
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,
nasunogultimoiyongfiretanknaminsalakas,sir.
Pros.Rebagay:
Now,willyoupleasetelluswherethisfireoccurred?
A:Atthehouseofthesixvictims,sir.
Q:Whosehouseisthat?
A:Thehouseofthevictims,sir.
xxxx
Pros.Rebagay:
You said that you responded to the place, what transpired after you
respondedtotheplace?
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
roonpalabasngsasakyan,sir.
Q:Andsowhathappened?
A:Siyemprehindi 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.
9/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Q:Wheredidyourespond?
A:AtBalasan,sir,butitsnottheareaofmyjurisdiction.
xxxx
Q:Whathappenedwhenyoureachedthatplace?
A:Siyapoangnahulikodoon,sir.
Court:
WitnesspointingtoaccusedEdnaMalngan.
Pros.Rebagay:
Andwhathappened?
A:Ibroughthertothebarangayhall,sir.
Q:Andwhathappenedatthebarangayhall?
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
walistingtingparamakauwi,sir.
Atty.Herman:
Wewouldliketoobject,YourHonoronthegroundthatthatishearsay.
Pros.Rebagay:
That is not a hearsay statement, Your Honor, straight from the mouth of
theaccused.
Atty.Herman:
Its not under the exemption under the Rules of Court, Your Honor. He is
testifyingaccordingtowhathehasheard.
Court:
Thats part of the narration. Whether it is true or not, thats another matter.
Letitremain.
Pros.Rebagay:
Now,whowerepresentwhentheaccusedaretellingyouthis?
A: Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon nakapaligid, siyempre may
sunog nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para
saktanhindikomaibigaypapatayinsiyagawangmaynamatayehanimna
tao and namatay, kaya iyong mga tao kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya
dahil pinpointed 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
[11]
nasunog.
10/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Forherpart,MerceditaMendoza,oneoftheneighborsoftheSeparaFamily
andwhosehousewasoneofthosedestroyedbythefire,recounted:
Pros.Rebagay:
Madam Witness, on January 2, 2001, do you recall where were you
residingthen?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Wherewereyouresidingat?
A:AtNo.170ModernaSt.,Balut,Tondo,Manila,sir.
Q: Why did you transfer your residence? Awhile ago you testified that you are
nowresidingat147ModernaSt.,Balut,Tondo,Manila?
A:Becauseourhousewasburned,sir.
Q: More or less, how much did the loss incurred on the burning of your house
(sic)?
A:Moreorless,P100,000.00,sir
Q:DoyouknowtheaccusedinthiscaseEdnaMalngan?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Whydoyouknowher?
A:Sheisthehousehelperofthefamilywhowere(sic)burned,sir.
Q:Whatfamily?
A:Cifara(sic)family,sir.
Q:WhoinparticulardoyouknowamongCifara(sic)family?
A:Thewoman,sir.
Q:Whatisthename?
A:VirginiaMendozaCifara(sic),sir.
Q:AreyourelatedtoVirginiaMendozaCifara(sic)?
A:Myhusband,sir.
Q:What is the relationship of your husband to the late Virginia Mendoza Cifara
(sic)?
A:Theywerefirstcousins,sir.
11/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Q:HowfarisyourhousefromthehouseoftheCifara(sic)family?
A:Magkadikitlangpo.Paderlangangpagitan.
Q: You said that Edna Malngan was working with the Cifara (sic) family. What
istheworkofEdnaMalngan?
A:Nangangamuhanpo.Househelper,sir.
Q: How long do you know Edna Malngan as house helper of the Cifara (sic)
family?
A:Icannotestimatebutshestayedthereforthreetofouryears,sir.
Q:DoyouknowwhocausedtheburningofthehouseoftheCifara(sic)family?
Witness:
EdnaMalngan,sir.
Pros.Rebagay:
Why do you know that it was Edna Malngan who burned the house of the Cifara
(sic)family?
A: When the fire incident happened, sir, on January 3, we went to San Lazaro
FireStationandIsawEdnaMalngandetainedthere,sir.
Q: And so what is your basis in pointing to Edna Malngan as the culprit or the
onewhoburnedthehouseoftheCifara(sic)family?
A:Italkedtoherwhenwewentthereatthatday,sir.
Q:Whattranspiredthen?
A:ItalkedtoherandItoldher,Edna,bakitmonamanginawayungganun?
Q:AndwhatwastheanswerofEdna?
A: She answered, Kasi pag nagpapaalam ako sa kanyang umuwi ng probinsya,

nagpapaalamposiyangumuwingprobinsyaangsinasabidawposakanya
ni Baby Cifara (sic) na, (sic)Sige umuwi ka, pagdating mo maputi ka na.
Sumakaykasawalispagdatingmomaputikana.
Pros.Rebagay:
What is the basis there that she was the one who burned the house of the Cifara
(sic)family?
A:Ialsoaskedher,Paanomoginawayungsunog?Shetoldme,Naglukot ako ng
maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis niya sa
[12]
ibabawnglamesasaloobngbahay.(sic)
12/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
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
victimsbuttonoavail.
The prosecution presented other documentary evidence
[13]
and thereafter
resteditscase.
When it came time for the defense to present exculpatory evidence, instead
of doing so, accusedappellant filed a Motion to Admit Demurrer to Evidence
and the corresponding Demurrer to Evidence
[15]
[14]
with the former expressly
stating that said Demurrer to Evidence was being filed x x x without express
leaveofcourtxxx.
[16]
InherDemurrertoEvidence,accusedappellantassertsthattheprosecutions
evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
following reasons:
[17]
(a) that she is charged with crime not defined and
penalized by law (b) that circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove her
guiltbeyondreasonabledoubtand(c)thatthetestimoniesgivenbythewitnesses
oftheprosecutionwerehearsay,thus,inadmissibleinevidenceagainsther.
The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition to accusedappellants

DemurrertoEvidence.
On 13 October 2003, acting on the Demurrer to Evidence, the RTC

promulgated its Judgment
[18]
wherein it proceeded to resolve the subject case
based on the evidence of the prosecution. The RTC considered accusedappellant

to have waived her right to present evidence, having filed the Demurrer to
Evidencewithoutleaveofcourt.
13/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
In finding accusedappellant Edna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crimeofArsonwithMultipleHomicide,theRTCruledthat:
The first argument of the accused that she is charged with an act not
defined and penalized by law is without merit. x x x the caption which charges
the accused with the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide is merely
descriptive of the charge of Arson that resulted to Multiple Homicide. The fact
is that the accused is charged with Arson which resulted to Multiple Homicide
(death of victims) and that charge is embodied and stated in the body of the
information. What is controlling is the allegation in the body of the Information
andnotthetitleorcaptionthereof.xxx.
xxxx
The second and third arguments will be discussed jointly as they are
interrelatedwitheachother.xxx.
xxxx
[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
circumstancesthatshowthattheaccusedintentionallycausedorwasresponsible
forthesubjectfirehavebeendulyestablished:
1.that immediately before the burning of the house, the accused hurriedly
and with head turning in different directions (palingalinga) went out of the said
houseandrodeapedicabapparentlynotknowingwheretogoxxx
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
ChairmanRemigioBernardoand
3. that when she was apprehended and investigated by the barangay

officials and when her bag was opened, the same contained a disposable lighter
aslikewiseshownbythetestimonyoftheBarangayChairman.
[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
where she alighted from the pedicab and the discovery of the lighter in her bag
thereafterwheninvestigatedindisputablyshowherguiltascharged.
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
Mendozaandtothemedia,respectively.
xxxx
14/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
[H]er confessions/admissions are positive acknowledgment 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
undertheConstitution.
ThedecretalpartoftheRTCsJudgmentreads:
WHEREFORE,theDemurrertoEvidenceisherebydeniedandjudgmentis
hereby rendered finding the accused EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson
resulting to the death of six (6) people and sentencing her to suffer the
mandatory penalty 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 Fifty 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.
DuetothedeathpenaltyimposedbytheRTC,thecasewasdirectlyelevated
to this Court for automatic review. Conformably with our decision in People v.
Efren Mateo y Garcia,
[19]
however, we referred the case and its records to the
CAforappropriateactionanddisposition.
On 2 September 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the

decisionoftheRTC,thefalloofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed October 13, 2003

Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, finding accused
appellant Edna Malngan y Mayo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Arson with
multiple homicide and sentencing her to suffer the DEATH PENALTY is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that she is further ordered to pay
P50,000.00 as moral damages and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for
each of the victims who perished in the fire, to be paid to their heirs. She is
ordered to pay Rodolfo Movilla, one whose house was also burned, the sum of
P50,000.00asexemplarydamage.
Pursuant to Section 13 (a), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal

ProcedureasamendedbyA.M.No.00503SCdatedSeptember28,2004,which
became effective on October 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals, after rendering
judgment, hereby refrains from making an entry of judgment and forthwith
certifiesthecaseandelevatestheentirerecordofthiscasetotheSupremeCourt
[20]
forreview.
15/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
It is the contention of accusedappellant that the evidence presented by the

prosecution is not sufficient to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the
perpetrator of the crime charged. In support of said exculpatory proposition, she
assignsthefollowingerrors
[21]
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS
SUFFICIENTTOCONVICTTHEACCUSEDand
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING 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.
THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH (MULTIPLE)

HOMICIDE.
The Information in this case erroneously charged accusedappellant with a

complex crime, i.e., Arson with Multiple Homicide. Presently, there are two (2)
laws that govern the crime of arson where death results therefrom Article 320 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659,
and Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1613
[23]
[22]
, quoted hereunder, to
wit:
RevisedPenalCode:
ART.320.DestructiveArson.xxxx
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under
this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
[Emphasissupplied.]
PresidentialDecreeNo.1613:
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the

occasion of the arson death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
16/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
shallbeimposed.[Emphasissupplied.]
Art. 320 of the RPC, as amended, with respect to destructive arson, and the
provisions of PD No. 1613 respecting other cases of arson provide only one
penaltyforthecommissionofarson,whetherconsidereddestructiveorotherwise,
where death results therefrom. The raison d'tre is that arson is itself the end and
deathissimplytheconsequence.
[24]
Whether the crime of arson will absorb the resultant death or will have to be a
separate crime altogether, the joint discussion
[25]
of the late Mr. Chief Justice
Ramon C. Aquino and Mme. Justice Carolina C. GrioAquino, on the subject of

thecrimesofarsonandmurder/homicide,ishighlyinstructive:
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. When 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
[26]
life.
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
[27]
building,theresultinghomicidemaybeabsorbedbythecrimeofarson.
xxxx
If the house was set on fire after the victims therein were killed, fire would not
be a qualifying circumstance. The accused would be liable for the separate
[28]
offensesofmurderorhomicide,asthecasemaybe,andarson.
Accordingly, in cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine
what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and
homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but
deathresultsbyreasonorontheoccasionofarson,thecrimeissimplyarson,and
theresultinghomicideisabsorbed(b)if,ontheotherhand,themainobjectiveis
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
17/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
onlylastly,(c)iftheobjectiveis,likewise,tokillaparticularperson,andinfact
theoffenderhasalreadydoneso,butfireisresortedtoasameanstocoverupthe
killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed
homicide/murderandarson.
Wherethendoesthiscasefallunder?
FromareadingofthebodyoftheInformation:
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

said accused, with intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately set fire upon the twostorey residential
house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made of wooden materials
located at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting crumpled
newspaperwiththeuseofdisposablelighterinsidesaidhouseknowingthesame
to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a
consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with
some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire that by reason
andontheoccasionofthesaidfire,thefollowing,namely,
1. RobertoSepara,Sr.,45yearsofage
2. VirginiaSeparayMendoza,40yearsofage
3. MichaelSepara,24yearsofage
4. DaphneSepara,18yearsofage
5. PriscillaSepara,14yearsofage
6. RobertoSepara,Jr.,11yearsofage
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death
[29]
immediatelythereafter.
[Emphasissupplied.]
accusedappellant 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
useoffire.
We now go to the issues raised. Under the first assignment of error, in

asserting the insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence to establish her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, accusedappellant argues that the prosecution was only
able to adduce circumstantial evidence hardly enough to prove her guilt beyond
reasonabledoubt.Sheratiocinatesthatthefollowingcircumstances:
1. That immediately before the burning of the house , the accused hurriedly
and with head turning in different directions (palingalinga) went out of
the said house and rode a pedicab apparently not knowing where to go for
18/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
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
prosecutionwitnessRolandoGruta
2. That immediately after the fire, upon a report that there was a woman in
Balasan St. who appears confused and apprehensive (balisa),theBarangay
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
BarangayChairmanRemigioBernardoand
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
[30]
likewiseshownbythetestimonyoftheBarangayChairman.
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,
[31]
one of which is preparing and cooking the
morning meal for the members of the household and necessity 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.
[32]
She then concludes that it was
normal for her to have been seen going out of her employers house in a hurry at
thattimeofthedayandtolookatalldirectionstoinsurethatthehouseissecure
andthattherearenootherpersonsinthevicinity.
[33]
Wearefarfrompersuaded.
True, by the nature of their jobs, housemaids are required to start the day
early however, contrary to said assertion, the actuations and the demeanor of
accusedappellant on that fateful early morning as observed firsthand by Rolando
Gruta, one of the witnesses 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.
What happened when you saw Edna coming out from the house of the
SeparaFamily?
A:Walapaponganoyannaisakaykonasiyasasidecar.
19/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Q:And what did you observe from Edna when you saw her coming out from the
houseoftheSeparafamily?
A:Nagmamadaliposiyanglumakadatpalingalinga.
xxxx
Q:Aftersheboardedyourpedicab,whathappened,ifany?
A:Nagpahatidposiyasaakin.
Q:Where?
A:ToNipaStreet,sir.
Q:DidyoubringhertoNipaStreetassherequested?
A:Yes,sir.
xxxx
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What happened when you go
(sic)thereatNipaStreet,ifany?
A:Nagpahintoposiyadoonngsaglit,mgatatlongminutopo.
Q:Whatdidshedowhensheasked(you)tostopthereforthreeminutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to bring her directly to Balasan Street,
sir.
xxxx
We quote with approval the pronouncement of the RTC in discrediting

accusedappellantsaforementionedrationale:
[O]bviously it is never normal, common or ordinary 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 discovery of the lighter in her bag thereafter
[34]
wheninvestigatedindisputablyshowherguiltascharged.
All the witnesses are in accord that accusedappellants agitated appearance

wasoutoftheordinary.Remarkably,shehasneverdeniedthisobservation.
20/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
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 opportunity to observe
them directly. The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an
important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its
unique opportunity to observe them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and
attitude, during the direct and crossexamination by 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 Remigio Bernardo, the
Barangay Chairman, kept accusedappellant from being mauled by the angry
crowdoutsideofthebarangayhall:
Pros.Rebagay:
Now,whowerepresentwhentheaccusedare(sic)tellingyouthis?
A: Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon nakapaligid, siyempre may
sunog nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para
saktanhindikomaibigaypapatayinsiyagawangmaynamatayehanimna
tao and namatay, kaya iyong mga tao kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya
dahil pinpointed po siya, Your Honor, iyong dami na iyon libo iyong
nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall napakahirap awatin. Gustinggusto
siyang kunin ng mga taongbayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong
[35]
nasunog.
Accusedappellant has not shown any compelling reason why the witnesses
presented would openly, publicly and deliberately lie or concoct a story, to send
an innocent person to jail all the while knowing that the real malefactor remains
atlarge.Such proposition defies logic. And where the defense failed to show any
evil or improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, the presumption
isthattheirtestimoniesaretrueandthusentitledtofullfaithandcredence.
[36]
While the prosecution witnesses did not see accusedappellant actually

starting the fire that burned several houses and killed the Separa family, her guilt
may still be established through circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there
is more than one circumstance (2) the facts from which the inferences are
21/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
derivedareprovenand,(3)thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchasto
produceconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.
[37]
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of

facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.
[38]
It is
founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a

connectionbetweentheknownandprovenfactsandthefactssoughttobeproved.
[39]
In order to bring about a conviction, the circumstantial evidence presented
must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty
person.
[40]
Inthiscase,theinterlockingtestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesses,taken
together, exemplify a case where conviction can be upheld on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. First, prosecution witness Rolando Gruta, the driver of
the pedicab that accusedappellant rode on, testified that he knew for a fact that
sheworkedasahousemaidofthevictims,andthathepositivelyidentifiedheras
the person hurriedly leaving the house of the victims on 2 January 2001 at 4:45
a.m., and acting in a nervous manner. That while riding on the pedicab, accused
appellant was unsure of her intended destination. Upon reaching the place where
he originally picked up accusedappellant only a few minutes after dropping her
off,RolandoGruta saw the Separas house being gutted by a blazing fire. Second,
RemigioBernardotestifiedthatheandhistanods,includingRolandoGruta, were
the ones who picked up accusedappellant Edna at BalasanStreet (where Rolando
Gruta dropped her off) after receiving a call that there was a woman acting
strangely at said street and who appeared to have nowhere to go. Third, SPO4
DaniloTalusanoverheardaccusedappellantadmittoCarmelitaValdez,areporter
ofChannel2(ABSCBN)thatsaidaccusedappellantstartedthefire,plusthefact
that he was able see the telecast of Gus Abelgas show where accusedappellant,
while being interviewed, confessed to the crime as well. The foregoing
testimonies juxtaposed with the testimony of Mercedita Mendoza validating the
fact that accusedappellant confessed to having started the fire which killed the
22/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Separa family as well as burned seven houses including that of the victims,
convincingly form an unbroken chain, which leads to the unassailable conclusion
pinpointingaccusedappellantasthepersonbehindthecrimeofsimplearson.
In her second assigned error, accusedappellant questions the admissibility

of her uncounselled extrajudicial confession given to prosecution witnesses,
namely Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza, and to the media. Accused
appellant Edna contends that being uncounselled extrajudicial confession, her
admissions to having committed the crime charged should have been excluded in
evidence against her for being violative of Article III, Section 12(1) of the
Constitution.
Particularly, she takes exception to the testimony of prosecution witnesses

Remigio Bernardo and Mercedita Mendoza for being hearsay and in the nature of
anuncounselledadmission.
With the above vital pieces of evidence excluded, accusedappellant is of

the position that the remaining proof of her alleged guilt, consisting in the main
of circumstantial evidence, is inadequate to establish her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Wepartlydisagree.
ArticleIII,Section12oftheConstitutioninpartprovides:
(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 with one. These rights
cannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.
xxxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this Section or

Section17hereofshallbeinadmissibleinevidence.
We have held that the abovequoted provision applies to the stage of

custodial investigation when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
23/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
anunsolvedcrimebutstartstofocusonaparticularpersonasasuspect.
[41]
Said
constitutional guarantee has also been extended to situations in which an

individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for
questioning.
[42]
To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the extrajudicial

confessionsmademustsatisfythefollowingrequirements:
(1) itmustbevoluntary
(2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel
(3) itmustbeexpressand
(4)itmustbeinwriting.
[43]
Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this

particular instance, may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of
applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When accused
appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of 2January2001, she
was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several
houses as well as killed the whole family of Roberto Separa, Sr. She was,
therefore, already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by
Article III, Section 12(1), of the Constitution should have already been observed
or applied to her. Accusedappellants confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio
Bernardo was made in response to the interrogation made by the latter admittedly
conducted without first informing accusedappellant of her rights under the
Constitutionordoneinthepresenceofcounsel.Forthisreason,theconfessionof
accusedappellant, given to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, as well as the
lighter found by the latter in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her as
suchwereobtainedinviolationofherconstitutionalrights.
Be that as it may, the inadmissibility of accusedappellants confession to

Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo and the lighter as evidence do not
automatically lead to her acquittal. It should well be recalled that the
constitutionalsafeguardsduringcustodialinvestigationsdonotapplytothosenot
24/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
elicitedthroughquestioningbythepoliceortheiragentsbutgiveninanordinary
manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed the offense as
what happened in the case at bar when accusedappellant 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 accusedappellant, admissible in evidence against
herandisnotcoveredbytheaforesaidconstitutionalguarantee.ArticleIIIofthe
Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, solely governs the relationship between the
individual on one hand and the State (and its agents) on the other it does not
concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another private
individual as both accusedappellant and prosecution witness Mercedita Mendoza
undoubtedly are.
[44]
Here, there is no evidence on record to show that said
witness was acting under police authority, so appropriately, accusedappellants

uncounselled extrajudicial confession to said witness was properly admitted by
theRTC.
Accusedappellant likewise assails the admission of the testimony of SPO4

Danilo Talusan. Contending that [w]hen SPO4 Danilo Talusan testified in court,
his story is more of events, which are not within his personal knowledge but
based from accounts of witnesses who derived information allegedly from the
accused or some other persons x xx.In other words, she objects to the testimony
for being merely hearsay. With this imputation of inadmissibility, we agree with
whattheCourtofAppealshadtosay:
Although this testimony of SFO4 Danilo Talusan is hearsay because he

was not present when Gus Abelgas interviewed accusedappellant EDNA, it may
nevertheless be admitted in evidence as an independently relevant statement to
establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact that the
statement was made [People v. Mallari, G.R. No. 103547, July 20, 1999, 310
SCRA 621 citing People v. Cusi, Jr., G.R. No. L20986, August 14, 1965, 14
SCRA 944.]. In People vs. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 132635 & 14387275, February
21,2001,352SCRA455,theSupremeCourtruledthat:
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements,

regardlessoftheirtruthorfalsity,thefactthatsuchstatementshave
been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the
statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of
such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself
25/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to

[45]
theexistenceofsuchafact.
As regards the confession given by accusedappellant to the media, we need

notdiscussitfurtherforthereporterswereneverpresentedtotestifyincourt.
As a final attempt at exculpation, accusedappellant asserts that since the

identitiesoftheburnedbodieswereneverconclusivelyestablished,shecannotbe
responsiblefortheirdeaths.
Suchassertionisbereftofmerit.
In the crime of arson, the identities of the victims are immaterial in that
intenttokillthemparticularlyisnotoneoftheelementsofthecrime.Aswehave
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 or dwelling. Again,
inthecaseofPeoplev.Soriano,
[46]
weexplainedthat:
Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of Arson, it may be

inferredfromtheactsoftheaccused.Thereisapresumptionthatoneintendsthe
natural consequences of his act and when it is shown that one has deliberately
setfiretoabuilding,theprosecutionisnotboundtoproducefurtherevidenceof
[47]
hiswrongfulintent.
The ultimate query now is which kind of arson is accusedappellant guilty

of?
As previously discussed, there are two (2) categories of the crime of arson:
1) destructive arson, under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
RepublicActNo.7659and2)simplearson, under Presidential Decree No. 1613.
Said classification is based on the kind, character and location of the property
burned,regardlessofthevalueofthedamagecaused,
[48]
towit:
26/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
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
military, government or commercial establishments by any person or group
[49]
of persons.[
] The classification of this type of crime is known as
Destructive Arson, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The
reason for the law is selfevident: 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 this heinous 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 property resulting from the conflagration the fact that it is normally difficult
toadoptprecautionsagainstitscommission,andthedifficultyinpinpointingthe
perpetrators and, the greater impact on the social, economic, security and
politicalfabricofthenation.[Emphasissupplied.]
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under
Art.320,deathshouldresult,themandatorypenaltyofdeathshallbeimposed.
On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326B of The
Revised Penal Code remains the governing law for Simple Arson. This decree
contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless
ofsize,notincludedinArt.320,asamendedbyRA7659,andclassifiedaso ther
cases of arson. These include houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms,
mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other
[50]
industrial establishments.[
] 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 economy and preserve the social, economic and
political stability of the nation, PD 1613 tempers the penalty to be meted to
offenders. This separate classification of Simple Arson recognizes the need to
lessen the severity of punishment commensurate to the act or acts committed,
depending on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Toemphasize:
The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by

the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts
committed under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended) constituting
DestructiveArsonarecharacterizedasheinouscrimesfor being grievous, odious
and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to
thecommonstandardsandnormsofdecencyandmoralityinajust,civilizedand
[51]
ordered society.
On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613
constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and
viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple
Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and
national security implications than Destructive Arson. However, acts falling
27/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into Destructive Arson

[52]
dependingonthequalifyingcircumstancespresent.[Emphasissupplied.]
Prescindingfromtheaboveclarificationvisvisthedescriptionofthecrime
as stated in the accusatory portion of the Information, it is quite evident that
accusedappellant was charged with the crime of Simple Arson for having
deliberately set fire upon the twostorey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA
and family x x x knowing the same to be an inhabited house and situated in a
thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and
thesaidbuilding,togetherwithsomeseven(7)adjoiningresidentialhouses,were
razedbyfire.[Emphasissupplied.]
The facts of the case at bar is somewhat similar to the facts of the case of
People v. Soriano.
[53]
The accused in the latter case caused the burning of a
particular house. Unfortunately, the blaze spread and gutted down five (5)
neighboring houses. The RTC therein found the accused guilty of destructive
arson under paragraph 1
[54]
of Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659. This Court, through Mr. Justice Bellosillo, however,
declaredthat:
x x x [T]he applicable provision of law should be Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613,

which imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for other
cases of arson as the properties burned by accusedappellant are specifically
described as houses, contemplating inhabited houses or dwellings under the
aforesaid law. The descriptions as alleged in the second Amended Information
particularly refer to the structures as houses rather than as buildings or edifices.
The applicable law should therefore be Sec. 3, Par. 2, of PD 1613, and not Art.
320,par.1ofthePenalCode.Incaseofambiguityinconstructionofpenallaws,
it is wellsettled that such laws shall be construed strictly against the
government,andliberallyinfavoroftheaccused.
The elements of arson under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613 are: (a) there is
intentionalburningand(b)whatisintentionallyburnedisaninhabitedhouseor
[55]
dwelling.Incidentally,theseelementsconcurinthecaseatbar.
As stated in the body of the Information, accusedappellant was charged

with having intentionally burned the twostorey residential house of Robert
28/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
Separa. Said conflagration likewise spread and destroyed seven (7) 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 notwithstanding the error in the designation of the offense in the
information, the information remains effective insofar as it states the facts
constituting the crime alleged therein.
[56]
What is controlling is not the title of
the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or
part thereof allegedly violate, x xx, but the description of the crime charged and
theparticularfactsthereinrecited.
[57]
Thereis,thus,aneedtomodifythepenaltyimposedbytheRTCasSec.5of
PD No. 1613 categorically provides that the penalty to be imposed for simple
arsonis:
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the

occasion of arson death results, the penalty of reclusionperpetua to death shall
beimposed.[Emphasissupplied.]
Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance alleged in the

Information,theimposablepenaltyonaccusedappellantisreclusionperpetua.
Apropos the civil liabilities of accusedappellant, current jurisprudence
[58]
dictate that the civil indemnity due from accusedappellant is P50,000.00 for the
death of each of the victims.
[59]
However, the monetary awards for moral and
exemplary damages given by the Court of Appeals, both in the amount of

P50,000.00, due the heirs of the victims, have to be deleted for lack of material
basis. Similarly, the Court of Appeals award of exemplary damages to Rodolfo
Movilla in the amount of P50,000.00 for the destruction of his house, also has to
be deleted, but in this instance for being improper. Moral damages cannot be
awardbythisCourtintheabsenceofproofofmentalorphysicalsufferingonthe
part of the heirs of the victims.
[60]
Concerning the award of exemplary damages,
29/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
the reason for the deletion being that no aggravating circumstance had been
allegedandprovedbytheprosecutioninthecaseatbar.
[61]
To summarize, accusedappellants alternative plea that she be acquitted of

thecrimemustberejected.Withtheevidenceonrecord,wefindnocogentreason
todisturbthefindingsoftheRTCandtheCourtofAppeals.Itisindubitablethat
accusedappellant is the author of the crime of simple arson. All the
circumstantial evidence presented before the RTC, viewed in its entirety, is as
convincingasdirectevidenceand,assuch,negatesaccusedappellantsinnocence,
and when considered concurrently with her admission given to Mercedita
Mendoza, the formers guilt beyond reasonable doubt is twice as evident. Hence,
her conviction is effectively justified. More so, as it is propitious to note that in
stark contrast to the factual circumstances presented by the prosecution, accused
appellantneithermusteredadenialnoranalibiexceptforthepropositionthather
guilthadnotbeenestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, 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 accusedappellant EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO is concerned.
The sentence to be imposed and the amount of damages to be awarded, however,
are MODIFIED. In accordance with Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1613,
accusedappellant is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused
appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of each of the victims P50,000.00 as
civilindemnity.
SOORDERED.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
30/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
NSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
RENATOC.CORONA
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
DANTEO.TINGA
CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
31/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
PursuanttoArticleVIII,Section13oftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthat
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.
ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
[1 ]
[2 ]
[3 ]
[4 ]
[5 ]
[6 ]
[7 ]
[8 ]
Pe n n e d b y C o u rt o f A p p e a l s A sso c i a t e Ju st i c e Vi c e n t e Q . R o x a s w i t h A sso c i a t e Ju st i c e s Po rt i a A l i o
H o rma c h u e l o sa n d Ju a n Q .En ri q u e z ,Jr.c o n c u rri n g ro l l o ,p p .3 2 6 .
Pe n n e d b y H o n .R o d o l fo A .Po n fe rra d a ,Pre si d i n g Ju d g e ,RTC M a n i l a ,B ra n c h 4 1 R e c o rd s,p p .2 9 6 3 1 0 .
C Ad e c i si o n ,p p .2 5 ro l l o ,p p .4 7 .
R e c o rd s,p p .1 2 .
Id .a t 1 .
Id .a t 1 2 1 3 .
D u ri n g t h e t ri a l , a c c u se d a p p e l l a n t Ed n a w a s a ssi st e d b y A t t y. B ri a n S. M a sw e n g o f t h e N a t i o n a l
C o mmi ssi o n o n In d i g e n o u s Pe o p l e s a s sh e i s a me mb e r o f B l a a n e t h n i c t ri b e fro m Sa ra n g g a n i
Pro v i n c e .
A l so t e rme d a sSFO 4 i n so me p a rt so ft h e re c o rd s.
[9 ]
TSN ,1 9 Ju n e 2 0 0 1 ,p p .2 3 2 6 .
[1 0 ]
TSN ,1 5 A u g u st 2 0 0 1 ,p p .5 1 2 .
[11 ]
TSN ,2 1 A p ri l 2 0 0 3 ,p p .5 1 0 .
[1 2 ]
TSN ,2 2 Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 2 ,p p .4 7 .
[1 3 ]
Ex h i b i t A a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s p i c t u re s o f t h e v i c t i ms Ex h i b i t B a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s p i c t u re s o f t h e
v i c t i ms Ex h i b i t C a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s p i c t u re s o f t h e v i c t i ms Ex h i b i t D a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s
p i c t u re s o f t h e b u rn e d h o u se s Ex h i b i t E a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s Sw o rn St a t e me n t o f M e rc e d i t a d e l o s
Sa n t o s M e n d o z a Ex h i b i t F a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s Sw o rn St a t e me n t o f e y e w i t n e ss R o l a n d o G ru t a
Ex h i b i t G p l a st i c p a c k a g e w h e re i n t h e d i sp o sa b l e l i g h t e r (Ex h . G 1 ) w a s p l a c e d Ex h i b i t G 1
d i sp o sa b l e l i g h t e r Ex h i b i t H a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s C ri me R e p o rt Ex h i b i t I a n d i t s su b ma rk i n g s
B o o k i n g Sh e e t a n d A rre st R e p o rt o f a c c u se d Ed n a M a l n g a n Ex h i b i t J sk e t c h o f t h e h o u se fo t h e
Se p a ra Fa mi l y a n d Ex h i b i t K a n d i t ssu b ma rk i n g sl e t t e rd a t e d 3 Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 1 .
[1 4 ]
R e c o rd s,p p .2 6 1 2 6 2 .
[1 5 ]
Id .a t 2 6 3 2 8 1 .
[1 6 ]
Id .a t 2 6 1 .
[1 7 ]
D e mu rre rt o Ev i d e n c e ,p .1 Id .a t 2 6 3 .
[1 8 ]
Id .a t 2 9 6 3 1 0 .
[1 9 ]
G .R . N o s. 1 4 7 6 7 8 8 7 , 7 Ju l y 2 0 0 4 , 4 3 3 SC R A 6 4 0 Pe o p l e v. Ma t e o , c a se mo d i fi e d Se c t i o n s 3 a n d 1 0
o f R u l e 1 2 2 , Se c t i o n 1 3 o f R u l e 1 2 4 , Se c t i o n 3 o f R u l e 1 2 5 o f t h e R e v i se d R u l e s o f C ri mi n a l
Pro c e d u re a n d a n y o t h e r ru l e i n so fa r a s t h e y p ro v i d e fo r d i re c t a p p e a l s fro m t h e R e g i o n a l Tri a l
C o u rt t o t h e Su p re me C o u rt i n c a se s w h e re t h e p e n a l t y i mp o se d i s d e a t h , re c l u si o n p e rp e t u a o r l i fe
i mp ri so n me n t .
[2 0 ]
Ro l l o ,p p .3 2 6 .
[2 1 ]
A sst a t e d i n a p p e l l a n t Ed n a sB ri e f,p p .3 4 C A ro l l o ,p p .4 1 4 2 .
32/34
8/14/2016
[2 2 ]
[2 3 ]
[2 4 ]
[2 5 ]
[2 6 ]
[2 7 ]
[2 8 ]
[2 9 ]
[3 0 ]
[3 1 ]
[3 2 ]
[3 3 ]
[3 4 ]
[3 5 ]
[3 6 ]
[3 7 ]
[3 8 ]
[3 9 ]
[4 0 ]
[4 1 ]
[4 2 ]
[4 3 ]
[4 4 ]
[4 5 ]
[4 6 ]
[4 7 ]
G.R.No.170470
A N A C T TO IM PO SE TH E D EATH PEN A LTY O N C ERTA IN H EIN O U S C R IM ES, A M EN D IN G FO R

TH AT PU R PO SE TH E R EV ISED PEN A L C O D E, A S A M EN D ED , O TH ER SPEC IA L PEN A L LAW S,
A N D FO R O TH ER PU R PO SES.
A M EN D IN G TH ELAW O N A R SO N .
Se e Pe o p l e v.Pa t e rn o ,8 5 Ph i l .7 2 2 .
A q u i n o ,R .C .a n d G ri o A q u i n o ,C .C .Th e R e v i se d Pe n a l C o d e ,1 9 9 7 e d .,Vo l .II,p p .5 8 9 5 9 0 .
C i t i n g Bu rn s,4 1 Ph i l .4 1 8 ,4 3 2 ,4 4 0 .
C i t i n g Pe o p l e v.Pa t e rn o ,su p ra ,n o t e 2 4 .
C i t i n g Be rsa b a l ,4 8 Ph i l .4 3 9 Pi ri n g ,6 3 Ph i l .5 4 6 M o n e s,6 8 Ph i l .4 6 La o l a o ,1 0 6 Ph i l .11 6 5 .
Id .a t 1 .
A c c u se d a p p e l l a n t Ed n a sB ri e f,p .4 C A ro l l o ,p .4 2 .
Id .a t 4 3 .
Id .
Id .a t 4 4 .
RTC Ju d g me n t ,p .11 re c o rd s,p .3 0 6 .
TSN ,2 1 A p ri l 2 0 0 3 ,p p .9 1 0 .
Pe o p l e v.Li za d a ,G .R .N o .9 7 2 2 6 ,3 0 A u g u st 1 9 9 3 ,2 2 5 SC R A 7 0 8 ,7 1 3 .
Pe o p l e v.Bri o n e s,G .R .N o .9 7 6 1 0 ,1 9 Fe b ru a ry 1 9 9 3 ,2 1 9 SC R A 1 3 4 .
Pe o p l e v.Ay o l a ,G .R .N o .1 3 8 9 2 3 ,4 Se p t e mb e r2 0 0 1 ,3 6 4 SC R A 4 5 1 ,4 6 1 .
Id .
Pe o p l e v. S e v i l l e n o , G .R . N o . 1 5 2 9 5 4 , 1 0 M a rc h 2 0 0 4 , 4 2 5 SC R A 2 4 7 , 2 5 6 Pe o p l e v. Le a o , G .R . N o .
1 3 8 8 8 6 , 9 O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1 , 3 6 6 SC R A 7 7 4 , 7 8 6 Pe o p l e v. Ba l d e ra s, G .R . N o . 1 0 6 5 8 2 , 3 1 Ju l y 1 9 9 7 ,
2 7 6 SC R A 4 7 0 ,4 8 3 .
Pe o p l e v.An d a n ,G .R .N o .11 6 4 3 7 ,3 M a rc h 1 9 9 7 ,2 6 9 SC R A 9 5 ,1 0 6 .
S a n c h e zv.D e m e t ri o u ,G .R .N o s.111 7 7 1 7 7 ,9 N o v e mb e r1 9 9 3 ,2 2 7 SC R A 6 2 7 ,6 3 9 .
Pe o p l e v.Ta n ,G .R .N o .11 7 3 2 1 ,11 Fe b ru a ry 1 9 9 8 ,2 8 6 SC R A 2 0 7 ,2 1 4 .
Pe o p l e v.Ma rt i ,G .R .N o .8 1 5 6 1 ,1 8 Ja n u a ry 1 9 9 1 ,1 9 3 SC R A 5 7 ,6 7 .
Ro l l o ,p p .1 9 2 0 .
S u p ra a t n o t e 3 0 .
C u rt i s,A Tre a t i se o n t h e La w o fA rso n (1 st e d .,1 9 8 6 ),Se c .2 8 3 ,p .3 0 3 .
[48]
Pe o p l e v.S o ri a n o ,G .R .N o .1 4 2 5 6 5 ,2 9 Ju l y 2 0 0 3 ,4 0 7 SC R A 3 6 7 .
[4 9 ]
U n d e r A rt . 3 2 0 , a s a me n d e d , t h e e n u me ra t i o n o f t h e i n st a n c e s fo r D e st ru c t i v e A rso n i s e x c l u si v e : (a )
o n e (1 ) o r mo re b u i l d i n g s o r e d i fi c e s, c o n se q u e n t t o o n e si n g l e a c t o f b u rn i n g , o r a s a re su l t o f
si mu l t a n e o u s b u rn i n g , o r c o mmi t t e d o n se v e ra l o r d i ffe re n t o c c a si o n s (b ) a n y b u i l d i n g o f p u b l i c o r
p ri v a t e o w n e rsh i p , d e v o t e d t o t h e p u b l i c i n g e n e ra l o r w h e re p e o p l e u su a l l y g a t h e r o r c o n g re g a t e
fo ra d e fi n i t e p u rp o se su c h a s,b u t n o t l i mi t e d t o ,o ffi c i a l g o v e rn me n t a l fu n c t i o n o rb u si n e ss,p ri v a t e
t ra n sa c t i o n , c o mme rc e , t ra d e w o rk sh o p , me e t i n g s a n d c o n fe re n c e s, o r me re l y i n c i d e n t a l t o a d e fi n i t e
p u rp o se , su c h a s b u t n o t l i mi t e d t o , h o t e l s, mo t e l s, t ra n si e n t d w e l l i n g s, p u b l i c c o n v e y a n c e o r st o p s
o r t e rmi n a l s, re g a rd l e ss o f w h e t h e r t h e o ffe n d e r h a d k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e re a re p e rso n s i n sa i d
b u i l d i n g o re d i fi c e a t t h e t i me i t i sse t o n fi re a n d re g a rd l e ssa l so o fw h e t h e rt h e b u i l d i n g i sa c t u a l l y
i n h a b i t e d o r n o t (c ) a n y t ra i n o r l o c o mo t i v e , sh i p o r v e sse l , a i rsh i p o r a i rp l a n e , d e v o t e d t o
t ra n sp o rt a t i o n o r c o n v e y a n c e , o r fo r p u b l i c u se , e n t e rt a i n me n t o r l e i su re (d ) a n y b u i l d i n g , fa c t o ry,
w a re h o u se i n st a l l a t i o n a n d a n y a p p u rt e n a n c e s t h e re t o , w h i c h a re d e v o t e d t o t h e se rv i c e o f p u b l i c
33/34
8/14/2016
G.R.No.170470
u t i l i t i e s (e ) a n y b u i l d i n g t h e b u rn i n g o f w h i c h i s fo r t h e p u rp o se o f c o n c e a l i n g o r d e st ro y i n g
e v i d e n c e o f a n o t h e r v i o l a t i o n o f l a w, o r fo r t h e p u rp o se o f c o n c e a l i n g b a n k ru p t c y o r d e fra u d i n g
c re d i t o rs o r t o c o l l e c t fro m i n su ra n c e (f) w h e n c o mmi t t e d b y t w o (2 ) o r mo re p e rso n s, re g a rd l e ss o f
w h e t h e rt h e i rp u rp o se i sme re l y t o b u rn o rd e st ro y t h e b u i l d i n g o rt h e b u rn i n g me re l y c o n st i t u t e sa n
o v e rt a c t i n t h e c o mmi ssi o n o f a n o t h e r v i o l a t i o n o f l a w (g ) a n y a rse n a l , sh i p y a rd , st o re h o u se o r
mi l i t a ry p o w d e r o r fi re w o rk s fa c t o ry, o rd i n a n c e , st o re h o u se , a rc h i v e s o r g e n e ra l mu se u m o f t h e
G o v e rn me n t (h ) i n a n i n h a b i t e d p l a c e , a n y st o re h o u se o r fa c t o ry o f i n fl a mma b l e o r e x p l o si v e
ma t e ri a l .
[5 0 ]
Se c . 3 o f Pre si d e n t i a l D e c re e N o . 1 6 1 3 e n u me ra t e s t h e O t h e r C a se s o f A rso n w h i c h a re p u n i sh a b l e b y
t h e p e n a l t y o f re c l u si o n t e mp o ra l t o re c l u si o n p e rp e t u a : (a ) A n y b u i l d i n g u se d a s o ffi c e s o f t h e
g o v e rn me n t o r a n y o f i t s a g e n c i e s (b ) A n y i n h a b i t e d h o u se o r d w e l l i n g (c ) A n y i n d u st ri a l
e st a b l i sh me n t , sh i p y a rd , o i l w e l l o r mi n e sh a ft , p l a t fo rm o r t u n n e l (d ) A n y p l a n t a t i o n , fa rm,
p a st u re l a n d , g ro w i n g c ro p , g ra i n fi e l d , o rc h a rd , b a mb o o g ro v e o r fo re st (e ) A n y ri c e mi l l , su g a r
mi l l ,c a n e mi l l ,o rmi l l c e n t ra l a n d ,(f)a n y ra i l w a y o rb u sst a t i o n ,a i rp o rt ,w h a rfo rw a re h o u se .
[5 1 ]
Se e Pre a mb l e ,R e p u b l i c A c t N o .7 6 5 9 .
[52]
Supraatnote30.
[53]
Supra.
[54]
1 . O n e (1 ) o r mo re b u i l d i n g o r e d i fi c e s, c o n se q u e n t t o o n e si n g l e a c t o f b u rn i n g , o r a s a re su l t o f
si mu l t a n e o u sb u rn i n g s,o rc o mmi t t e d o n se v e ra l o rd i ffe re n t o c c a si o n s.
[5 5 ]
S u p ra a t n o t e 3 0 .
[5 6 ]
Pe o p l e v.Li b ra d o ,G .R .N o .1 4 1 0 7 4 ,1 6 O c t o b e r2 0 0 3 ,4 1 3 SC R A 5 3 6 .
[57]
Pe o p l e v.D i m a a n o ,G .R .N o .1 6 8 1 6 8 ,1 4 Se p t e mb e r2 0 0 5 ,4 6 9 SC R A 6 4 7 ,6 6 6 .
[5 8 ]
Pe o p l e v. Bu l a n , G .R . N o . 1 4 3 4 0 4 , 8 Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , 4 5 9 SC R A 5 5 0 Pe o p l e v. Ma sa g n a y , G .R . N o .
1 3 7 3 6 4 , 1 0 Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , 4 3 1 SC R A 5 7 2 Pe o p l e v. C o m a d re , e t a l ., G .R . N o . 1 5 3 5 5 9 , 8 Ju n e 2 0 0 4 ,
4 3 1 SC R A 3 6 6 a n d Pe o p l e v.Ba g n a t e ,G .R .N o .1 3 3 6 8 5 8 6 ,2 0 M a y 2 0 0 4 ,4 2 8 SC R A 6 3 3 .
[59]
A rt i c l e 2 2 0 6 o f t h e N e w C i v i l C o d e p ro v i d e s t h a t w h e n d e a t h o c c u rs a s a re su l t o f a c ri me , t h e h e i rs o f
t h e d e c e a se d a re e n t i t l e d t o b e i n d e mn i fi e d w i t h o u t n e e d o fa n y p ro o ft h e re o f.
[60]
Pe o p l e v.Ab u t ,G .R .N o .1 3 7 6 0 1 ,2 4 A p ri l 2 0 0 3 ,4 0 1 SC R A 4 9 8 .
[61]
A rt . 2 2 3 0 o f t h e N e w C i v i l C o d e d i c t a t e s t h a t , i n c ri mi n a l o ffe n se s, e x e mp l a ry d a ma g e s a s a p a rt o f t h e
c i v i l l i a b i l i t y ma y b e i mp o se d w h e n t h e c ri me w a s c o mmi t t e d w i t h o n e o r mo re a g g ra v a t i n g
c i rc u mst a n c e s.
34/34

G. R. No - PDF People Vs Malngan

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

G. R. No - PDF People Vs Malngan

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

8/14/2016

For review is the Decision

of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR HC

No. 01139 promulgated on 2 September 2005, affirming with modification the

Case No. 01188424 promulgated on 13 October 2003, finding appellant Edna

by the Court of Appeals, the antecedent facts are as

From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay Chairman

Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay Chairman Bernardos

When Barangay Chairman Bernardo returned to the Barangay Hall, he

Accusedappellant EDNA was then turned over to arson investigators

When interviewed by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABSCBN Network,

On 9 January 2001, an Information

was filed before the RTC of Manila,

That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

When arraigned, accusedappellant with assistance of counsel de oficio,

The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely, SPO4

Talusan, Rolando Gruta, Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza and Rodolfo

A: Naglukot po siya ng papel, sinidihan niya ng lighter at inilagay niya sa

A: Mismong nakita po ng dalawang mata ko na doon siya galing sa bahay ng

A: Siyempre po, isang Barangay Tanod po ako, nagresponde na po kami sa

On January 2, 2001, do you recall if there is a fire that occurred

A: Kasi ugali ko na po tuwing umagangumaga po ako na pupunta sa barangay

A: She answered, Kasi pag nagpapaalam ako sa kanyang umuwi ng probinsya,

Lastly, the prosecution presented Rodolfo Movilla, owner of the house

The prosecution presented other documentary evidence

with the former expressly

(a) that she is charged with crime not defined and

The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition to accusedappellants

On 13 October 2003, acting on the Demurrer to Evidence, the RTC

wherein it proceeded to resolve the subject case

based on the evidence of the prosecution. The RTC considered accusedappellant

In finding accusedappellant Edna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

3. that when she was apprehended and investigated by the barangay

[H]er confessions/admissions are positive acknowledgment of guilt of the crime

however, we referred the case and its records to the

On 2 September 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed October 13, 2003

Pursuant to Section 13 (a), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal

It is the contention of accusedappellant that the evidence presented by the

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING AND GIVING CREDENCE

THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH (MULTIPLE)

The Information in this case erroneously charged accusedappellant with a

SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the

of the late Mr. Chief Justice

Ramon C. Aquino and Mme. Justice Carolina C. GrioAquino, on the subject of

That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

We now go to the issues raised. Under the first assignment of error, in

one of which is preparing and cooking the

She then concludes that it was

We quote with approval the pronouncement of the RTC in discrediting

[O]bviously it is never normal, common or ordinary to leave the house in such a

All the witnesses are in accord that accusedappellants agitated appearance

While the prosecution witnesses did not see accusedappellant actually

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of

founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a

In order to bring about a conviction, the circumstantial evidence presented

In her second assigned error, accusedappellant questions the admissibility

Particularly, she takes exception to the testimony of prosecution witnesses

With the above vital pieces of evidence excluded, accusedappellant is of

(1)Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this Section or

We have held that the abovequoted provision applies to the stage of