G.R. Nos. L-14973-74. October 26, 1960.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN CASUMPANG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 3, 1954, in Barrio Balabag, Anilao, Iloilo, at around midnight, Venancio Apresto and his mother Rosario Osano were asleep in their house when three men called from below, asking for a torch. Venancio, upon instruction from his mother, prepared and handed a lighted torch through the window to one of the men, whose face he saw. The same man later asked for a glass of water, which Venancio also provided. The trio then demanded that the door be opened, and when the inmates refused, they attempted to force it open. Failing this, they shouted for weapons and money. After Rosario replied she had none, they forced open a window panel. The man who received the torch attempted to enter but was forced to jump down when Venancio struck at him with a bolo. Upon reaching the ground, this man fired a gunshot (which hit no one) and then, upon a signal from his companions, set the house on fire using the torch. The trio fled. Rosario, Venancio, and two children escaped through the kitchen. The house and its contents, valued at P1,200, were totally destroyed. The following Monday, after an initial report attempt on Sunday, the Chief of Police investigated. Venancio and Rosario later identified the appellant, Juan Casumpang, at the municipal hall as the man who received the torch and water, and who set the fire. They recognized him by the light of the torch and knew him by sight before the incident, though not by name. Appellant was charged with simple arson. The trial court found him guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction but held the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua, and certified the case to the Supreme Court for final disposition.

ISSUE

Whether the identity of the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the arson is sufficiently established by the evidence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses Venancio Apresto and Rosario Osano, who recognized appellant by the light of the torch during the incident and knew him by sight beforehand, is credible and sufficient. Alleged minor inconsistencies in their affidavits do not undermine their identification, as affidavits are often hurriedly taken and inaccuracies are clarified during trial. The defense of alibi was properly disregarded, as appellant’s house was only about seven kilometers from the crime scene and accessible by modern transportation. The claim of extortion by the police chief was not substantiated and did not provide motive for the witnesses to falsely testify. The trial court did not deprive appellant of compulsory process for a defense witness, as a subpoena was issued and, after a granted postponement, the defense closed its case without further pursuing the witness. The crime committed is arson of an inhabited house under Article 321(1) of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The commission was aggravated by nighttime, with no mitigating circumstances. The indemnity was corrected to P1,200, the proven value of the loss. Appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with accessories, and to indemnify Antonio Apresto in the sum of P1,200.