G.R. No. L-6273, December 27, 1957
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jose Hidalgo y Resurreccion and Maura Gotengco y Soliman, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The accused spouses, Jose Hidalgo and Maura Gotengco, were convicted of arson on an inhabited building by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity to various insurance companies. The fire occurred on the evening of October 8, 1950, on the second floor of their building at the corner of Echague and Rizal Avenue, Manila. Fire investigators found evidence of arson: broken and unbroken glass jars containing gasoline, with lines of toilet paper dipped in gasoline arranged to connect them, suggesting a device to spread the fire. The building was insured under multiple policies totaling P175,000, with six policies worth P70,000 taken out about a month before the fire. The appellants owned only the first floor and one-half of the second floor, with the reproduction cost of the entire building being P89,524.59. They did not file a claim for the estimated damage of P5,255. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Florencio Camilo, a co-accused who was excluded from the information to become a state witness. Camilo testified that he, along with James Kay and Aw Ming, met with the appellants to plan the arson for a fee of P16,000, partially paid by postdated checks. The appellants challenged Camilo’s credibility and the legality of his discharge as a witness.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the exclusion of Florencio Camilo from the complaint to make him a state witness over the appellants’ opposition.
2. Whether the corpus delicti was not proven.
3. Whether the testimony of Florencio Camilo, being the sole witness linking the appellants to the crime and allegedly incredible, should be rejected, warranting acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
1. The trial court did not err in allowing Camilo’s discharge as a state witness. The law (Act No. 2709) permits the discharge of a co-accused to be a witness for the state, and the court has sound judicial discretion in enforcing the conditions for such discharge. A hearing was conducted, and any error in discharging a guilty person does not affect the criminal liability of the other accused.
2. The corpus delicti was proven. There was a fire established to be of criminal agency, as shown by the arson device (gasoline-filled jars with connecting tissue paper) found at the scene. Proof of corpus delicti in arson requires evidence of a fire due to criminal agency and the defendant’s responsibility for it, both of which were established.
3. The testimony of Florencio Camilo was credible and sufficient to convict. His detailed account of the planning and agreement with the appellants was corroborated by physical evidence (the arson device), the insurance policies, and the appellants’ failure to claim insurance for the damage. The court found no reason to disbelieve his testimony, which was consistent and supported by circumstances. The defense of alibi presented by the appellants was weak and uncorroborated.
The decision of the trial court was affirmed without costs.