G.R. No. 83186, June 4, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELPIDIO DEMECILLO and ROGELIO CRISMAL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Elpidio Demecillo and Rogelio Crismal, were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte for the crime of arson. The prosecution evidence established that on April 7, 1986, in Iligan City, the appellants, along with others, burned the house of Anacita Fuentes. Witness Aurelio Tuastomban testified that he saw the appellants holding lighted coconut leaves and setting the house on fire. The trial court, applying the indeterminate sentence law, sentenced them to imprisonment ranging from two years and four months to eight years and ordered them to indemnify the offended party.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but modified the penalty. It found that the trial court erroneously applied the repealed provisions of the Revised Penal Code on arson. The applicable law was Presidential Decree No. 1613, which prescribes a heavier penalty. The appellate court determined that the burned property was an inhabited house and that the appellants were motivated by spite or hatred, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Consequently, following procedural rules for cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua or higher, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court for final review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua under P.D. No. 1613, and whether the appellants were properly convicted under the said law despite the information citing the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the prosecution evidence, particularly the positive identification by an eyewitness, established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Their defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated.
On the penalty, the Supreme Court upheld the application of P.D. No. 1613, which amended the law on arson. The Court explained that under Section 3 of the decree, the penalty for burning an inhabited house is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, Section 4 provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period if the offense is motivated by spite or hatred, which was proven in this case. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly applied. The Court also clarified that the appellate court has the power to correct the penalty imposed by the trial court. The argument that the appellants were not properly informed of the charge under P.D. No. 1613 was without merit. A conviction is valid as long as the facts alleged and proven constitute the crime, even if the information cites a different penal provision, provided there is no change in the nature of the offense. Here, the crime charged remained arson; only the applicable penal law was rectified. The indemnity order was affirmed.