Case Digest (G.R. No. 206236)
Facts:
The case involves Gilfredo Bacolod, also known as Gilardo Bacolod, who was the accused-petitioner in a criminal case against the People of the Philippines, the plaintiff-respondent. The events leading to the case unfolded on March 31, 2008, when the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, in Cebu City, found Bacolod guilty of arson. The RTC sentenced him to imprisonment for a period ranging from ten (10) years of Prision Mayor in its medium period as the minimum to sixteen (16) years of Reclusion Temporal in its medium period as the maximum. Following this, on December 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in full. The case arose from allegations that Bacolod had set fire to a house rented by the complainants, Spouses Ceferino and Gemma Cogtas. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies that linked Bacolod to the crime. The case was appealed by Bacolod, who contended that both the RTC and CA erred in their evalu...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 206236)
Facts:
- Conviction by the RTC: On March 31, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City, convicted Gilfredo Bacolod (a.k.a. Gilardo Bacolod) of arson. He was sentenced to 10 years of prision mayor (medium period) as minimum to 16 years of reclusion temporal (medium period) as maximum.
- Affirmation by the CA: On December 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in full.
- Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies. Ruben Gonzales testified that he heard the petitioner demanding money from his sister, Daisy Mae Bacolod, inside the rented house of Spouses Ceferino and Gemma Cogtas. He later saw the petitioner waving a flaming blanket in the kitchen, which caused the house to burn down.
- Civil Liability Omission: The RTC and CA failed to award civil liability to the Spouses Cogtas for the damage caused by the arson, despite evidence of economic loss.
Issue:
- Sufficiency of Evidence: The petitioner argued that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence, which he claimed was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Proper Penalty: The petitioner questioned whether the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was correct under the law.
- Civil Liability: The Court raised the issue of whether the RTC and CA erred in failing to award civil liability to the Spouses Cogtas for the damage caused by the arson.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)