G.R. No. 22345 - People vs. Dino

The case involves the People of the Philippine Islands as plaintiff and appellant, and defendants Felipe Ditto (also referred to as Felipe Dino in testimonies) and Fortunato Laubisto (also Lauristo) accused of arson.
The incident reportedly occurred on or about midnight of May 4, 1923, in the sitio of Capipian, barrio of Lope de Vega, municipality of Catarman, Province of Samar.

The defendants were charged with the crime of arson for allegedly using dynamite or another explosive substance with premeditation and in collusion.
It is alleged that the dynamite was placed at the door of the house of Casimiro Abria, leading to an explosion that burned the ceiling, partly destroyed the house, and caused material damage amounting to no more than 6,250 pesetas.
The complaint explicitly describes the act as done "contrary to law," emphasizing the criminality of a premeditated act that endangered property and potentially human life.

Borca testified that, around February 1923, Felipe Dino proposed using dynamite to explode Casimiro Abria’s house.
He reported that he was present when the accused made the statement: “Andres there is a dynamite here; fire it in the house of Casimiro Abria,” which he refused to carry out due to his lack of expertise with explosives.
The testimony, however, was uncorroborated, as Borca did not produce any direct evidence of seeing dynamite or any explosive substance in the possession of Felipe Dino.

Horogon stated that he was invited by Gabriel Dino on the night of May 4, 1923, to go fishing, and during the outing reached the area known as Iraya in Lope de Vega.
He claimed that after an explosion occurred, Felipe Dino hurriedly returned to the boat and cautioned him not to disclose that he had ordered Fortunato Lauristo to fire a dynamite in the house of Casimiro Abria.
Horogon's account was rendered incredible due to the unverified invitation, the absence of any corroboration, the denial of such events by the accused, and the uncertain details regarding the transportation and direction of the alleged criminal act.

Abria recounted that at about midnight, while sleeping with eight other persons in his modestly sized single compartment (approximately 12 square brazas), a strong explosion occurred.
Upon investigation, he found part of the wall contiguous to the main door destroyed, the ceiling (constructed of anahaw) partially burning with a hole one foot in diameter, and additional damage including unnailing of four boards from the wall and a similar hole on the wooden floor.
Abria’s observations were used to estimate the damage at P10, even though the dynamite or its remnants were never directly observed or linked to the defendants through physical evidence.

None of the witnesses saw the defendants with dynamite at the time of the explosion.
The physical evidence produced was strictly circumstantial, relying on the interpretations of the events and the damaged state of Abria’s house.

The discrepancy between Borca’s uncorroborated eyewitness account and Horogon’s doubtful narrative raised issues about the reliability and consistency of the presented circumstantial evidence.
The defense argued that without concrete and strong corroboration linking the accused to the possession or use of dynamite, the circumstantial nature of the evidence could not sufficiently establish guilt.

The appellants (Felipe Dino and Fortunato Lauristo) prayed for the reversal of the judgment from the Court of First Instance of Samar, which had sentenced them to ten years and one day of presidio mayor imprisonment, with additional penalties and costs.
The Attorney-General, while acknowledging certain facts, argued for the modification of the penalty to a lesser sentence of arresto mayor ranging from four months and twenty-one days to six months, citing procedural technicalities under Article 557, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code.

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented, in the absence of any direct evidence linking the defendants to the possession or use of dynamite, is adequate to establish the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the testimonies of witnesses Andres Borca and Enrique Horogon undermine the prosecution’s case sufficiently.

Whether the testimony of Andres Borca, which suggested that Felipe Dino had proposed the use of dynamite, can be substantiated given the absence of direct evidence or corroborative details.
Whether the account provided by Enrique Horogon regarding the fishing trip, explosion, and subsequent warning by Felipe Dino stands as a reliable narrative or whether its inherent improbabilities and lack of external validation preclude its admissibility as strong evidence.

Whether the physical evidence of damage reported by Casimiro Abria (holes in the ceiling and floor, destruction of part of the wall) is consistent with the alleged use of dynamite as narrated by the prosecution.
Whether the factual discrepancies, such as the absence of injuries among eight persons present during the explosion, cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of the incident.