G.R. No. 110029 December 29, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELEUTERIO GARGAR, MEDIO SADAGNOT (at large), JAIME GAMBOA, and two JOHN DOE CAFGUs, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 37, charging accused-appellants Eleuterio Gargar and Jaime Gamboa, along with Medio Sadagnot (at large) and two unknown CAFGU members, with Arson (Criminal Case No. 9463) and Murder (Criminal Case No. 9474). The charges stemmed from events on December 23, 1989, at sitio Apuya, Barangay Manalongon, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental. For arson, it was alleged they conspired to set fire to the residential house of Arsenio Acabo using an improvised torch (“sulo”). For murder, it was alleged they conspired to attack, assault, and shoot Joedex Acabo with a firearm, causing his instantaneous death. The two cases were jointly tried.
The prosecution evidence showed that around 11:30 PM on December 23, 1989, Arsenio Acabo was asleep in his house with his family when he was awakened by barking dogs and saw part of his roof on fire. He roused his children to extinguish the fire. From his window, Arsenio saw five men, identifying three: Eleuterio “Terio” Gargar (his brother-in-law), Jaime Gamboa, and Medio Sadagnot. He heard a gunshot and saw Gamboa aiming at their house, with Gargar standing beside him holding a bolo. Four more gunshots followed; Arsenio was hit in the toe, and he saw his son Joedex, who was on the roof helping put out the fire, fall after being hit. Joedex died from his wounds. The assailants then fled. Arsenio’s son, Mario Wellan Acabo, corroborated this account, testifying he saw the five armed men, recognized the same three, and saw Gamboa fire the gunshots that hit Joedex. A death certificate confirmed Joedex died from a bullet wound. Sgt. Virgilio Sarjento testified that a .30 M1 Garand rifle, a firearm similar to the one used, was issued to accused-appellant Gamboa.
The defense presented alibis. Accused-appellant Gargar claimed he was at home attending to his sick wife and child, only leaving to fetch a “manghihilot” and to gather leaves, and denied knowing Gamboa prior to jail. His wife and the “manghihilot” corroborated his story. Accused-appellant Gamboa claimed he was at a CAFGU outpost about ten kilometers away from the crime scene all day and night, which was corroborated by a fellow CAFGU member.
The trial court rejected the alibis, convicted both accused-appellants of arson and murder, and sentenced them accordingly. They appealed, contending the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which they claimed were inconsistent, and in finding conspiracy.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants of Arson (Criminal Case No. 9463) based on the evidence presented.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants of Murder (Criminal Case No. 9474) based on the evidence presented, including the finding of conspiracy and treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the appeal. It MODIFIED the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
1. On the charge of Arson (Criminal Case No. 9463), accused-appellants Eleuterio Gargar and Jaime Gamboa were ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found the evidence for arson insufficient. While witnesses saw appellants at the scene, no witness actually saw them set the house on fire. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of arson—that the fire was of incendiary origin. The evidence was purely circumstantial and did not meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2. On the charge of Murder (Criminal Case No. 9474), the decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED in toto. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Arsenio Acabo and Mario Wellan Acabo, who knew appellants well, prevailed over the weak alibis presented by the defense. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were minor and did not affect their credibility. Conspiracy was duly proven by the appellants’ collective and coordinated actions: they arrived together, were armed, and Gamboa fired at the house while Gargar stood guard with a bolo. Treachery (alevosia) was also present because the attack was sudden, without warning, and rendered the victim, Joedex Acabo, who was on the roof putting out the fire, defenseless. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the order to indemnify the heirs of Joedex Acabo in the amount of P50,000.00 were sustained.