Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14973-74)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Juan Casumpang, G.R. Nos. L-14973-74, October 26, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged Juan Casumpang with simple arson by information dated September 28, 1954 (Criminal Case No. 4626, Court of First Instance of Iloilo), alleging that on or about July 3, 1954, Casumpang and two other men entered and set fire to the inhabited house of Venancio Apresto in Anilao, Iloilo, causing total loss of property valued at P1,200.00. The information recited conspiracy, nighttime as an attendant circumstance, and that the alleged perpetrators were armed.
Following trial in the Court of First Instance, Casumpang was found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate term described in the judgment as from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to sixteen (16) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, and ordered to pay indemnity of P1,250.00 to Antonino Apresto, with costs. Casumpang appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. No. 15586-R). The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction but concluded that the proper penalty should have been reclusion perpetua; because that court lacked power to impose reclusion perpetua it certified the case to the Supreme Court for final disposition.
The evidence at trial showed that at about midnight on July 3, 1954 venancio Apresto and his mother Rosario Osano were asleep when three men asked for a torch; Venancio filled a bottle with kerosene and handed it, lighted, through a window to a man whose face he was able to discern. Venancio saw the backs of two other men. The intruders then demanded the door be opened, forced a window panel, and a struggle ensued in which the man holding the torch was struck with a bolo, fired a shot that missed, and then set the house on fire before fleeing. The house and its contents, valued at P1,200.00, were destroyed. Venancio had previously known Casumpang but had not known his name at the time of the occurrence.
Venancio and Rosario identified the appellant at trial as the man who received the torch and asked for water; about two months after the incident they had also identified a detained prisoner at the municipal hall as one of the raiders. The defense raised inconsistencies in their statements, advanced an alibi (that Casumpang remained at home about seven kilometers away), suggested mistaken identity with an ex-convict Jose Casumpang, accused the police chief of instigating charges after failed exto...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the identity of Juan Casumpang as one of the midnight raiders who set fire to the Apresto house sufficiently established beyond reasonable d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)