G.R. No. 180762 March 4, 2009
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio “aka” Nelio Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon, Appellants.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging Gaudencio Legaspi, Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio Cabildo, and Filoteo de Leon with the crime of arson for wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously burning the inhabited house of Rafael Mercado on April 5, 1986, in Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. Gaudencio Legaspi died prior to arraignment. The appellants pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s evidence established that at around 8:30 p.m. on April 5, 1986, Aquilina Mercado Rint and her sister Leonisa Mercado were inside their father Rafael Mercado’s hut. Upon hearing their dog bark, they saw five men approaching, whom they recognized as Gaudencio Legaspi and the four appellants. The sisters hid behind a pile of wood and saw the appellants surround the hut and set fire to its cogon roofing. Leonisa focused a flashlight on the group, prompting Gaudencio to order them to leave. The hut was razed. The prosecution also presented evidence of prior disputes over the land (tumana), including appellants destroying plants, a fence, and a previous hut, physically attacking Rafael, and issuing threats. Rafael had filed several cases against the appellants.
The appellants denied the charges. Carlito de Leon claimed he was working in Cavite on the day of the incident, but on cross-examination admitted he was previously convicted of Malicious Mischief for destroying a hut Rafael built on the same land. Nelio Cabildo claimed the appellants were in their respective homes and that the burnt materials shown in pictures were actually tree trunks and materials brought by Rafael. Bien de Leon claimed he lived 35 kilometers away. Filoteo de Leon corroborated the others.
The Regional Trial Court found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson and sentenced them to an indeterminate prison term. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and awarded temperate and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for the crime of arson.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The prosecution proved the elements of arson under Presidential Decree No. 1613: (a) intentional burning; and (b) the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. The positive, categorical, and consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses Aquilina and Leonisa, who identified the appellants as the perpetrators, prevailed over the appellants’ denial and alibi. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to the highest respect. Intent to burn can be inferred from the appellants’ acts of surrounding the hut and setting it on fire. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed as the crime involved the burning of an inhabited dwelling committed by a group (syndicate) of more than three persons. The awards of P2,000.00 as temperate damages (for the unproven exact value of the hut) and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages (due to the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed by a syndicate) were upheld.