G.R. No. 93485 June 27, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pedro Cedenio y Rasonable, Felipe Antipolo y Misa, and Jurito Amarga y Bahi-an, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On November 26, 1986, at around 10:30 PM, the house of Hilario Dorio in Barangay Gandingan, Pangantucan, Bukidnon, was set on fire. The blaze resulted in the deaths of five members of the Dorio household: Hilario Dorio, his wife Flora, his daughter Maria, his niece Dioscora (a 22-day-old infant), and his mother-in-law Nicanora Tabanao. The infant Dioscora had no stab or hack wounds and was charred, while the other victims sustained such wounds. Prosecution witnesses Bonifacio Palomas and Policarpio Apostadero testified that they were awakened by noises and cries for help, saw the house on fire, and witnessed appellants Pedro Cedenio, Jurito Amarga, and Felipe Antipolo, along with others, emerging from the burning house wielding bloodstained bolos. Another witness, Perfecto Antifuesto, testified that appellant Cedenio borrowed his bolo on the evening of the crime and it was returned in the early morning with fresh bloodstains; Cedenio later told him not to worry and that he would answer for everything if the incident reached the court. Although originally nine persons were charged, only the three appellants were convicted by the trial court for “Arson with Multiple Murder” under P.D. No. 1613 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of the complex crime of “Arson with Multiple Murder.”

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that there is no complex crime of arson with homicide under the law. The Court clarified the legal principles: (1) If the main objective is to kill and arson is used as the means, the crime is murder (or homicide) only. (2) If the main objective is to burn the building and death results, the crime is arson only, absorbing the homicide. (3) If the objective is to kill, the killing is accomplished, and arson is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the offender may be convicted of two separate crimes. In this case, the Information, although erroneously captioned, charged six distinct acts: the killing of five victims and the burning of the house. The appellants waived any defect from the multiplicity of charges by not moving to quash. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and sufficient to establish guilt through circumstantial evidence, which formed an unbroken chain leading to the appellants as perpetrators. Consequently, the Court modified the judgment. Appellants were found guilty of four counts of murder for the deaths of Hilario, Flora, Maria, and Nicanora (qualified by treachery and evident premeditation) and one count of arson under P.D. No. 1613 for the burning of the house which resulted in the death of infant Dioscora. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each murder and for the arson, to be served successively under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. They were also ordered to pay jointly and severally P50,000.00 civil indemnity for the death of each victim.