Title
People vs. Macabando
Case
G.R. No. 188708
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2013
Appellant intentionally set fire to his house, threatening neighbors and causing damage to neighboring properties; convicted of simple arson, not destructive arson.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 188708)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Context and Initial Incident
    • On December 21, 2001, around 4:00 p.m., appellant Alamada Macabando was seen breaking bottles on the road near his house while holding a G.I. pipe and shouting threats to “get even.”
    • The appellant also declared that he would burn his house.
  • The Fire and Immediate Events
    • At approximately 6:35 p.m. the same day, neighbors, including Cornelio Feliciano, noticed smoke coming from the appellant’s house. Cornelio attempted to douse the fire with water.
    • Eric Quilantang, a neighbor living 10 meters from appellant’s house, fetched a fire extinguisher from the barangay headquarters.
    • When Eric approached the burning house, the appellant, carrying a traveling bag and a gun, fired three shots in the air and warned that anyone who attempted to put out the fire would be killed.
    • Following the gunshots, neighbors hastily protected their families and belongings.
  • Investigation and Official Reports
    • Fire Officers Victor Naive and Reynaldo Maliao conducted a spot investigation, concluding the fire originated from the appellant’s house and was intentionally set.
    • Barangay Chairman Modesto Ligtas testified that the fire damaged many houses and aided City Social Welfare and Development Department personnel in damage assessment.
  • Defense Testimony and Alternate Version
    • The appellant claimed:
      • He lived in the two-story house owned by his sister.
      • He was angry earlier in the day due to the theft of a radio cassette but went to sleep thereafter.
      • The fire had already started when he woke up.
      • He denied threats, possession of a gun, and claimed the gunshots were from firecrackers.
    • Supporting witnesses (the appellant’s cousin and brother-in-law) attested that he neither fired a gun nor was awake at the time the fire started.
  • Procedural History
    • The prosecution charged appellant with destructive arson under Article 320, Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.
    • The appellant pleaded not guilty.
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

Issues:

  • Whether the prosecution established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt for destructive arson.
  • Whether the evidence supports the conviction for destructive arson under Article 320 of the RPC or simple arson under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1613.
  • What penalty is proper to impose on appellant given the ruling on the crime committed.
  • Whether the award of damages is justified under the circumstances.

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.