G.R. No. 19290; January 11, 1923
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MENANDRO CONSTANTINO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Menandro Constantino, was convicted of the crime of arson for setting fire to a public school building in the barrio of Pulongubat, Bigaa. The evidence presented by the prosecution included: (1) the accused’s dissatisfaction with the building’s location; (2) testimony from Eugenio B. Cruz that he surprised the accused in the act of setting the fire; (3) testimony from Feliciano Gonzalez that he saw the accused emerge from the building when it was burning; and (4) footprints found at the scene that matched the accused’s foot, including a missing toe. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, with indemnity and costs. The defendant appealed, raising six assignments of error.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not granting the accused time to read the information.
2. Whether the trial court erred in applying Article 550 of the Penal Code to a building not yet inaugurated.
3. Whether the penalty of cadena temporal is unconstitutional as excessive, unusual, and cruel.
4. Whether the evidence sufficiently proves the accused’s guilt as principal.
5. Whether the trial court erred in disallowing certain cross-examination questions.
6. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to prove certain facts.

RULING

1. *No error in denying time to read the information. The law refers to the time to answer, not merely to read it.
2. No error in applying Article 550. A building is considered public if the State or its agency holds title, not upon its inauguration. The school building had been delivered by the contractor to the municipality.
3. The penalty is not unconstitutional. Considering the gravity of arson—causing devastation, terror, and alarm—and the specific consequences of burning a public school in the Philippines, the penalty is not excessive, unusual, or cruel.
4. The evidence sufficiently proves guilt. The testimonies of witnesses and the corroborating physical evidence (footprints matching the accused’s foot with a missing toe) establish identity and culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The defense’s arguments about the bamboo exhibits (not being fully burnt) and the footprints (showing full heel impressions despite running) do not create reasonable doubt, as explanations exist (e.g., humid ground, bamboo falling before complete combustion).
5. No error in disallowing cross-examination questions. The trial court properly sustained objections to questions deemed unnecessary or irrelevant.
6. No error in excluding defense evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on evidence.

Modification of Penalty: The Supreme Court found no modifying circumstances, thus the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree. The judgment was modified to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of cadena temporal, with the rest affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion (Villamor, J.):* The evidence does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing the preservation of the bamboo exhibits and the reliability of the footprint evidence after the accused was taken to the scene twice after the fire.