People v. Dolendo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 18, 1996, Nestor Dolendo y Fediles alias "Etoy" (appellant) allegedly set fire to the house of Leonardo Perocho, Sr. The house was occupied by Leonardo Perocho, Jr., 6 years old, who was asleep. Deolina Perocho, Leonardo Jr.'s mother, testified that she saw appellant gathering dried coconut leaves and setting their porch on fire. She and her three other children escaped by jumping from a rear window. After the house was completely burned, Leonardo Jr. was found dead. Jessie Perocho, Deolina's son, corroborated that he saw appellant light a torch made of coconut leaves and use it to set their house on fire. Procedural History: Appellant was charged with arson resulting in death. He pleaded not guilty and invoked denial and alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of arson with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Appellant filed a motion for new trial based on affidavits of recantation from Deolina and Jessie Perocho, which the RTC denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision with modification, finding appellant guilty of simple arson instead of arson with homicide. The CA noted that the judge who rendered the decision was not the same judge who heard the case. The Petition: Appellant sought acquittal from the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's factual findings, that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the decision was invalid because a different judge rendered it, and that the CA erred in modifying his conviction to simple arson.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses and whether the prosecution proved appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the trial court's verdict of conviction was rendered invalid considering that the judge who rendered it was not the same judge who heard and tried the case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying appellant's conviction from arson with homicide to simple arson. On the imposable penalty and damages.
Ruling
The appeal is DENIED, and the Decision dated March 18, 2015, of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant Nestor Dolendo y Fediles alias "Etoy" is found guilty of simple arson and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and proof of guilt: The Court affirmed the positive testimonies of Deolina and Jessie Perocho, who positively identified appellant as the perpetrator who set their dwelling on fire, leading to the death of Leonardo Jr. The Court found their testimonies to be categorical, consistent, and firm, despite rigorous cross-examination. The alleged inconsistencies regarding the children present or appellant's exact utterances were deemed trivial and did not affect the witnesses' credibility. The Court also noted that any motive to testify against appellant stemmed from a desire for justice, not malice, given the loss of their son and brother. The defense of alibi was considered the weakest of all defenses, especially when unsubstantiated by corroborative evidence, and thus could not prevail over the positive identification by eyewitnesses. On the validity of the decision rendered by a different judge: The Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that a judge who did not hear the testimonies of witnesses can still render a valid decision by relying on the transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrating them in conformity with rules of evidence and common experience. The fact that a different judge penned the decision does not necessarily invalidate it or diminish the competence of the judge in assessing the evidence. The judge can rely on the records and assess credibility based on the written testimonies and other evidence presented. On the modification of conviction from arson with homicide to simple arson: The Court applied the ruling in People vs. Malngan, which clarifies the distinction between arson with homicide and simple arson when death results from the fire. The Court found that the main objective of the appellant was the burning of the dwelling, and the death of Leonardo Jr. occurred by reason or on the occasion of the arson. Therefore, the crime committed was simple arson, and the resulting homicide was absorbed. The Court of Appeals correctly modified the conviction based on this principle, as the intent to kill a specific person was not proven, nor was the fire used to cover up a prior killing. On the imposable penalty and damages: Pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree 1613, if death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. In the absence of aggravating circumstances, the Court affirmed the sentence of reclusion perpetua. The Court also sustained the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages, increased the exemplary damages, and granted temperate damages, all with legal interest from finality of the decision.
Main Doctrine
In cases where both burning and death occur, the main objective of the malefactor determines the crime: if the main objective is the burning of the building, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simple arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed. If the main objective is to kill a particular person, and fire is resorted to as the means, the crime is murder. If fire is resorted to as a means to cover up a killing, there are two separate crimes: homicide/murder and arson.