Case Digest (G.R. No. 188708)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Alamada Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant is Alamada Macabando; the prosecution is the People of the Philippines. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in an August 26, 2002 judgment, convicted Macabando of destructive arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00208-MIN, affirmed the RTC decision in a February 24, 2009 decision. The present appeal was filed by the appellant to the Supreme Court assailing the CA decision.
The prosecution's version of the facts was that on December 21, 2001 at about 4:00 p.m. the appellant acted violently near his house—breaking bottles while holding a G.I. pipe—and declared he would "get even" and burn his house. At about 6:35 p.m. neighbors discovered smoke from the appellant's house; when they attempted to extinguish the fire the appellant allegedly prevented them, carried a traveling bag and a gun, fired three shots in the air, and threatened to kill anyone who would put out the fire. Fire officers who investigated concluded the blaze started in the appellant's house and was intentional; the fire gutted many houses in the barangay. The barangay chairman and the City Social Welfare and Development Department certified that the damaged houses were residential.
The defense presented the appellant's denial: he lived in the two‑storey house owned by his sister, had become angry earlier when a cassette was stolen, then slept and awoke to find the fire already started, denied any threat to burn his house, denied owning or firing a gun (attributing the three shots to firecrackers he intended for New Year), and claimed he was asleep on the ground floor before the fire. Defense witnesses (a cousin and a brother‑in‑law) testified that they did not see him with a revolver or firing a shot and that he was asleep prior to the fire.
At trial the RTC found the prosecution evidence persuasive and convicted. The CA gave weight to the RTC's factual findings and affirmed, relying substantially on circumstantial evidence to conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal to the Supreme ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the appellant properly convicted of destructive arson under Article 320 of the RPC, or should the offense be simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613?
- If the offense is simple arson, what is the proper penalty under the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)