G.R. No. 142565. July 29, 2003.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. NESTOR G. SORIANO alias “Boy,” Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nestor Soriano had a heated argument with his live-in partner, Honey Rosario Cimagala, in the early hours of September 18, 1998, in Calinan, Davao City. The quarrel, which began over their child, escalated when Honey rejected Soriano’s sexual advances and kicked him. Enraged, Soriano struck her and declared, “It is better that I burn this house.” He then used a match to set fire to a plastic room divider and later to clothes inside a cabinet on the second floor of the house owned by Honey’s aunt.
Honey fled downstairs, shouting to alert neighbors that Soriano was setting the house on fire. Soriano followed, choked her, and briefly threatened her with a knife before returning upstairs to find the area engulfed in flames. The fire rapidly spread, resulting in the total destruction of the house occupied by Honey and five neighboring houses.

ISSUE

Whether the crime committed by Soriano is Destructive Arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, or a different form of arson.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Destructive Arson but modified the penalty. The legal classification of arson depends on the nature and location of the property burned, not merely the value of damage. The burned structure was an inhabited house, which, standing alone, would constitute arson under P.D. No. 1613. However, the fire also spread to adjacent inhabited houses. The Court ruled that when a fire originates in one inhabited dwelling and spreads to others, the crime escalates to Destructive Arson under Article 320(1), as amended. This provision specifically penalizes the burning of “any building” where the fire spreads to an adjacent building, regardless of the latter’s classification.
The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly Honey’s credible and consistent testimony, sufficient to prove Soriano’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His intent to burn the house was evident from his statements and actions. The Court, however, applied the privileged mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, as the crime was committed in the immediate aftermath of a violent quarrel provoked by Honey’s act of kicking him. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of damages to the victims was sustained.