G.R. No. L-5781-82; August 30, 1957
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE VILLAROYA, MANUEL DAET, ENRIQUE AREJOLA, JOSE MORALES, ALFREDO IBASCO, JR., ERNESTO TACORDA and LORETO SELPO, defendants; JOSE VILLAROYA, MANUEL DAET and ENRIQUE AREJOLA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On June 16, 1951, in Tinambac, Camarines Sur, appellants Jose Villaroya, Manuel Daet, and Enrique Arejola, together with Domingo Curi (Arejola’s father-in-law), executed a premeditated plan to kill spouses Felix Refugio and Victoria Toy. The plan, discussed the previous night, designated Daet to shoot Felix Refugio, Villaroya to stab Victoria Toy, and Arejola to kill the dog. They intended to place Refugio’s body on railroad tracks to simulate an accident. Curi was coerced into joining under threat from Daet. That evening, armed (Daet with a revolver, Villaroya with a revolver and knife, Arejola with a bolo), they proceeded to the victims’ house. Curi stood guard. Arejola killed the chained dog. Daet, from the stairs, shot Felix Refugio in the back of the head as he was writing inside the lit house. Villaroya and Arejola then entered; Villaroya stabbed Victoria Toy twice in the chest. Arejola doused the house with petroleum and set it on fire. Villaroya and Arejola carried the still-alive Felix Refugio downstairs. Using a pole, they transported him about a kilometer to the railroad tracks, with Curi as a lookout. At the tracks, Villaroya shot the groaning Refugio in the back of the head, killing him. Curi then fled. Victoria Toy’s charred remains were identified. Dr. Pablo T. Platon’s autopsies confirmed the causes of death: for Victoria Toy, universal burns with secondary shock; for Felix Refugio, a fatal bullet wound to the left occipital region. Separate informations for murder (of Felix Refugio) and murder with arson (of Victoria Toy) were filed. After a joint trial, the Court of First Instance convicted Villaroya, Daet, and Arejola in both cases, sentencing each to death for each crime and ordering indemnities. Their co-accused were acquitted. The convicted trio appealed, challenging the evidence and witness credibility.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of eyewitness Domingo Curi, sufficiently establishes the identity of appellants as the perpetrators of the murders beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the crimes committed constitute the complex crime of murder with arson.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings. The eyewitness account of Domingo Curi, despite minor alleged contradictions on peripheral details (e.g., whether the dog was barking or sleeping, the exact sequence of events), was deemed credible and convincing. The Court held that such inconsistencies do not render entire testimony incredible, especially for an illiterate witness, and often relate to translation or examination deficiencies. Curi’s positive identification of the appellants, one of whom was his son-in-law, was given full credence. His testimony was corroborated by physical evidence and autopsy findings. The appellants’ defense of alibi was rejected.
2. No, for the killing of Victoria Toy. The Court modified the trial court’s judgment regarding Criminal Case No. L-5781. Arson, when used as a means to kill a person, is a qualifying circumstance of murder (under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code) and not a separate crime. Therefore, it cannot be taken to form a complex crime. The killing of Victoria Toy is simple murder, qualified by means of arson. The crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty, and dwelling. For the murder of Felix Refugio (Criminal Case No. L-5782), the qualifying circumstance was treachery, aggravated by evident premeditation and dwelling.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In G.R. No. L-5781, appellants are guilty of murder (not the complex crime of murder with arson) for the death of Victoria Toy. In G.R. No. L-5782, appellants are guilty of murder for the death of Felix Refugio. For each crime, considering the presence of aggravating circumstances and absence of mitigating circumstances, the penalty of death for each appellant was imposed. The provisions of Articles 81, 82, and 84 of the Revised Penal Code regarding the execution of the death penalty were ordered to be strictly applied.