Title
Buebos vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 163938
Decision Date
Mar 28, 2008
Four accused convicted of simple arson for setting fire to a nipa hut; circumstantial evidence and conspiracy established guilt.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 161872)

Facts:

  • Incident and Discovery
    • On January 1, 1994, at approximately 3:00 a.m., private complainant Adelina B. Borbe was in her nipa hut in Hacienda San Miguel, Tabaco, Albay, attending to her sick child.
    • She heard noises outside, looked through the window, and saw four men—Rolando Buela, Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos, and Antonio Cornel, Jr.—congregating before her hut.
    • When she stepped out, she observed the nipa roof aflame; upon her cries for help, the four immediately fled.
  • Identification by Witness
    • At a distance, Olipiano Berjuela, who was drinking with Pepito Borbe, heard Adelina’s screams and ran to the scene.
    • Using a flashlight, Olipiano positively identified Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos, Antonio Cornel, Jr., and saw Rolando Buela running away.
  • Criminal Information
    • Adelina B. Borbe filed a complaint; an Information charged respondents with arson under P.D. No. 1613 for “wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously” setting fire to her nipa roof.
    • The accused were charged as co-conspirators who “conspired, confederated and helped one another” to commit the crime.
  • Defense of Denial and Alibi
    • Rolando Buela claimed attendance at a novena prayer in Sitio Tugon, Malictay.
    • Dante Buebos asserted presence at Romeo Calleja’s residence until around noon of January 1.
    • Sarmelito Buebos maintained he never left his home in Sitio Malictay on the date in question.
    • Antonio Cornel, Jr. testified he was at his in-laws’ residence and learned of the accusation days later; each presented supporting witnesses.
  • Trial Court and Appellate Court Dispositions
    • RTC Decision (April 7, 1998): Found all four accused guilty of arson beyond reasonable doubt; sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor (6 years, 1 day) as minimum to reclusion temporal (14 years, 8 months, 1 day) as maximum, plus costs.
    • CA Decision (November 13, 2003): Affirmed conviction but modified penalty; held respondents guilty of simple arson punishable by prision correccional (6 years) as minimum to prision mayor (10 years) as maximum, citing failure of the Information to allege an inhabited house.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that conspiracy to commit arson existed among the accused.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.