People v. Demecillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Elpidio Demecillo and Rogelio Crismal were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte for the crime of arson and sentenced to imprisonment. The prosecution presented Aurelio Tuastomban, who testified that he saw the appellants and seven others burning the house of Vicente Fuentes on April 7, 1986, using lighted dried coconut leaves. Anacita Fuentes, the owner, testified that her house, valued at P15,000.00, was burned. She also recounted a prior incident on March 19, 1986, where the appellants stoned the house and attempted to burn it, but desisted after a PC soldier arrived. The appellants apologized, offered to repair the house, and the complaint was dropped. Anacita Fuentes claimed she overheard the appellants say they would burn the house later while they were repairing it. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellants and imposed a penalty under the indeterminate sentence law. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the penalty, imposing reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, citing Presidential Decree No. 1613, which superseded the relevant provision of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals found that the crime was motivated by spite or hatred and that the aggravating circumstance of night time attended its commission, thus warranting the maximum period of reclusion perpetua. The case was certified to the Supreme Court for review. The Petition: The appellants appealed, raising issues regarding the credibility of the sole prosecution witness, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the imposition of reclusion perpetua by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's ruling in giving credit to the sole testimony of prosecution witness Aurelio Tuastomban. Whether the evidence for the prosecution is insufficient to convict the accused-appellants of the crime charged. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua by applying Section 3 of P.D. 1613.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of arson but modified the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. The appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of arson as defined in Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613 and sentenced to serve the penalty in the maximum period of reclusion perpetua. The order to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P1,000.00 was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Aurelio Tuastomban's testimony: The Court found Tuastomban's testimony to be credible and untarnished by doubt. The appellants' contention that he could not have identified them in the dark was refuted by the fact that they were carrying burning dried coconut leaves, which illuminated their faces from a distance of 15 meters. Furthermore, Tuastomban identified the appellants because they were his neighbors, while the other six individuals were not. The Court also noted that there was no apparent motive for Tuastomban to falsely identify the appellants, and his statements were therefore entitled to full faith and credit, consistent with established jurisprudence. On the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence: The Court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by Tuastomban, coupled with the admitted motive arising from a land dispute and prior violent incidents, including the stoning of the house and the appellants' promise to burn it, established the appellants' culpability. The defense of alibi was found weak, as the location cited (crossing Tipanoy) was only a ten-minute walk from the scene of the crime, making it possible for the appellants to have been present. The Court rejected the defense's theory that Romeo Fuentes and Aurelio Tuastomban burned the house, deeming it a fabrication to exculpate the appellants. On the imposition of reclusion perpetua under P.D. 1613: The Court ruled that the appellants were not improperly informed of the offense. It is settled that an accused may be convicted of a crime and sentenced to a penalty provided therefor, as long as the facts alleged in the information and proven at trial constitute the crime, even if it differs from the crime designated in the information. The amendment by P.D. 1613 pertained to an increase in penalty based on the facts of the offense, not a change in the designation or nature of the crime. The Court of Appeals correctly exercised its power to scrutinize the penalty imposed by the trial court and applied P.D. 1613, which was in effect prior to the commission of the offense. The Court further noted that Section 4 of P.D. 1613 mandates the maximum penalty when the crime is motivated by spite or hatred, a circumstance present in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals has the power to review and impose the correct penalty, including increasing it, when the trial court's imposed penalty is found to be erroneous, especially when the applicable law has been amended and the facts warrant a higher penalty. Motive such as spite or hatred can lead to the imposition of the maximum penalty.