GR L 18768; (February, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18768; February 28, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARSENIA TAMBA Y LUQUIRO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Arsenia Tamba y Luquiro was charged with arson with homicide before the Court of First Instance of Davao. The information alleged that, with grave abuse of confidence, she willfully burned the house owned and inhabited by Carlos S. Gavila, causing P30,000.00 in damage, and as a result, minor Regino Gavila III was burned to death. Upon arraignment, the accused, assisted by her counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to the charge as stated in the information.
The trial court rendered a decision finding her guilty as charged “under Art. 321, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 249, of the Revised Penal Code,” applying Article 48 on complex crimes. She was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay indemnities. The accused appealed the decision, contending that the trial court erred in convicting her of the specific form of arson with homicide under Article 321, paragraph 1.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of arson with homicide under Article 321, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, based solely on her plea of guilty to an information that did not allege her knowledge that the house was occupied at the time of the fire.
RULING
The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal and modified the penalty. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a plea of guilty admits only the facts alleged in the information. The Court reiterated its established doctrine that knowledge on the part of the accused that the building is occupied is an essential element of the crime of arson with homicide under Article 321, paragraph 1. Since the information failed to allege that the accused had such knowledge at the time she set the fire, her plea of guilty could not sustain a conviction for that specific complex crime.
Consequently, the accused could only be validly convicted of the crime actually described by the allegations, which constitutes the crime of arson under Article 321, paragraph 2, subsection (b). This provision deals with burning an inhabited house where the offender did not know whether it was occupied, punishable by reclusion temporal. This penalty is to be combined with the penalty for homicide under Article 249, also reclusion temporal. Applying Article 48 on complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime (reclusion temporal) should be imposed in its maximum period.
The Court considered the presence of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, offset by the mitigating circumstance of a guilty plea. The penalty was thus imposed in its medium period. Finally, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty. The decision was affirmed in all other respects, including the indemnities.