GR 16379; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16379 December 17, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAO WAN SING alias CO TIOK alias WASING, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On June 17, 1956, a fire broke out at Juana’s Store on Rizal Street in Kalibo, Aklan, spreading northward and engulfing adjacent stores and the Municipal Building. As this first fire was dying down, a second fire originated from the kitchen of the New Plaza Bazar, owned by appellant Lao Wan Sing, located across the street. This second fire spread widely, destroying much of the business section. Appellant was charged with arson. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimonies of four witnesses: Jose Narce testified that he saw appellant take a lighted kerosene lamp from the Laserna Drugstore, increase its flame, and later set fire to his own kitchen with kerosene from the lamp. Guillermo Vidal testified that he saw appellant bending over a pile of firewood in his kitchen just before flames and smoke appeared. Coronacion Peñaflor stated she heard appellant’s voice from the kitchen and then saw fire and smoke. Dr. Iluminado Motus confirmed the disappearance of a kerosene lamp from his drugstore during the evacuation. The defense presented appellant’s alibi and witnesses who testified about helping evacuate goods from his store and seeing the fire start from external sources like the burning municipal building. The trial court convicted appellant of arson with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion from the first fire.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Lao Wan Sing of the crime of arson based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding appellant guilty of arson. The Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent, establishing appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments attacking the witnesses’ credibility, noting that minor inconsistencies did not undermine their overall reliability. The Court found that the witnesses’ delay in reporting the incident was sufficiently explained by fear or initial reluctance. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion caused by the first fire was properly considered. The indemnities awarded to the victims were also affirmed as appellant did not appeal those amounts. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was sustained.