G.R. No. 110034 . August 16, 1995. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AVELINO GAZMEN AND ELEUTERIO GAZMEN (Acquitted), accused. AVELINO GAZMEN, accused-appellant.
FACTS

Avelino Gazmen and his father Eleuterio were charged with arson for setting fire to the house of Rosemarie Galamay on November 5, 1989, in Baggao, Cagayan. The prosecution evidence established that an altercation occurred between Avelino and Juanito Macasaddu, during which Eleuterio was hit. The Macasaddus sought refuge inside Rosemarie’s house. Avelino, armed with a gun, and Eleuterio chased them. Avelino shot Juanito inside the house. He then left and returned with a container of gasoline, which he poured on the rooftop and eaves of Rosemarie’s house and ignited, causing a fire. Witnesses testified that Eleuterio egged him on but did not directly participate in the act of setting the blaze. The fire was partially extinguished by neighbors.
The trial court convicted Avelino Gazmen of arson under P.D. No. 1613 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but acquitted Eleuterio Gazmen for insufficiency of evidence. Avelino appealed, arguing the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard the trial, challenging witness credibility, and contending his acquittal should follow his father’s.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Avelino Gazmen of arson beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The fact that the deciding judge was not the trial judge does not invalidate the decision. A judge can validly decide a case based on the complete trial transcripts and records, as was done here. The Court found no merit in the challenge to witness credibility. Rosemarie Galamay, the victim, and Danilo Bautista positively identified Avelino as the one who poured gasoline and set the house on fire. The Court noted the absence of any proven improper motive for these witnesses to falsely testify against him. Avelino’s defense of alibi—that he was accompanying his father to the hospital—was rejected as it cannot prevail over positive identification. His father’s testimony also revealed he was accompanied to the hospital by others, not necessarily Avelino. Finally, the acquittal of his co-accused Eleuterio does not compel Avelino’s acquittal. The evidence was overwhelming against Avelino as the principal who directly performed the act of arson, while the evidence merely showed Eleuterio’s presence and encouragement, which the trial court found insufficient for conviction. Therefore, the conviction was upheld.