Case Digest (G.R. No. 204544)
Facts:
Petitioner Marlon Bacerra y Tabones was charged in an Information dated January 12, 2006 with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1613, Section 1 for allegedly burning the nipa hut of private complainant Alfredo Melegrito on November 15, 2005. Prosecution witnesses testified that petitioner stoned complainant’s house, threatened to burn him, later returned and was seen near the nipa hut moments before it was set ablaze; the defense offered an alibi of drinking and sleeping at another house. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner on October 6, 2009; the Court of Appeals affirmed on August 30, 2012, and petitioner filed a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence?
- May the mitigating circumstances of intoxication and voluntary surrender be appreciated to reduce the penalty?
- Was the award of temperate damages in the amount of P50,000 proper?
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction for simple arson, upholding the RTC’s indeterminate sentence of six years of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum. The Court refused to recognize intoxication and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances and affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as temperate damages.
Ratio:
The Court held that circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction if the requisites of Rule 133, sec. 4 are met and the proven circumstances, considered as a whole, create an unbroken chain pointing to guilt; here the stoning, threats, petitioner’s return and his proximity to the nipa hut satisfied those requisites. The Court found no sufficient proof that petitioner’s intoxication impaired his faculties or that his surrender was spontaneous and motivated by acknowledgment of guilt. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages were proper because some pecuniary loss was shown though actual damages were not substantiated with certainty.
Doctrine:
- Circumstantial evidence may convict if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are drawn are proven, and the combination of circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133, sec. 4).
- Circumstances must form an unbroken chain consistent with guilt and inconsistent with every other rational hypothesis.
- The credibility of witnesses and factual findings on demeanor are for the trial court and will not be disturbed on Rule 45 review absent recognized exceptions.
- Intoxication is mitigating only if nonhabitual and shown to have impaired the accused’s mental faculties and will.
- Voluntary surrender is mitigating only if spontaneous and prompted by acknowledgment of guilt or to save authorities the trouble of capture.
- Article 2224 of the Civil Code permits temperate damages when pecuniary loss is suffered but the amount cannot be proved with certainty.