Case Digest (G.R. No. 104725)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Damiano Aggihao, G.R. No. 104725, March 10, 1994, the Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.
In an Information dated July 21, 1989, Damiano Aggihao was charged with arson before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 14), Lagawe, Ifugao. Upon arraignment on December 5, 1989, the accused pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial as Criminal Case No. 706.
The prosecution adduced eyewitness testimony that on August 28, 1988 the inhabited house of spouses Antonio and Betty Eheng in Lona, Lagawe, Ifugao was deliberately set afire. Ten‑year‑old Carolyn Eheng, a daughter, testified she saw the accused arrive in the morning, remove a younger child from the house, smash the pigpen roof, gather cogon and set the pigpen aflame, strike the house roof causing it to fall, collect fallen cogon and set fire at the house posts. Betty testified she left the kaingin in the afternoon, later saw smoke and the burning pigpen and in the evening saw a man ignite the house—she identified him as the accused. Antonio and Betty stated the accused was motivated by a land dispute: Aggihao claimed to have bought the land from Agnes Gawi while the Ehengs asserted ancestral ownership. Statements of Antonio, Betty and Carolyn were taken by police the day after the fire.
Aggihao mounted an alibi defense, claiming official travel to the Department of Health Regional Health Office No. 2 in Tuguegarao from August 28 to September 1, 1988. He introduced a Visitors' Logbook entry showing his name on August 28, an unnumbered Special Order dated August 19, 1988 directing travel, an Itinerary of Travel, a Certificate of Appearance, and testimony from Dr. German Mabbayad (who identified the Special Order) and security guard Domingo Bat‑tong (who testified the accused was at the regional office and stayed in the dormitory during the period).
After trial, the RTC (Decision dated December 23, 1991) convicted Aggihao of arson under Presidential Decree No. 1613, Sec. 3(2), finding the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt by positive identification and rejecting...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in accepting the prosecution witnesses' identification and rejecting the accused's alibi?
- Was the imposition of the maximum penalty (reclusion perpetua) proper when the special aggravating circumstance of spite or hatred was not alleged ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)