G.R. No. L-5724 - People vs Balmori

The defendants, Jesus Balmori and Cecilio Apostol, were charged with maliciously and criminally setting fire to personal property.
The incident occurred in a house of prostitution on Calle Balic-Balic in the District of Sampaloc on the afternoon of July 6.
Both accused had spent several hours together drinking intoxicating liquors prior to the incident.
Each defendant had occupied a separate room with one of the house’s inmates, and they were the only men present during that time.

As the accused were leaving the premises after their visit, an alarm for a fire was raised.
Defendant Balmori was seen running from the house and was subsequently apprehended by a woman, Pilar Fajardo, who pursued him upon hearing the alarm.
Defendant Apostol was not seen after Balmori had left him behind.
The fire originated in a room occupied by Agapita Rivera, one of the house’s patrons.

She testified that the two accused entered the room from other parts of the house.
Reported that Balmori lit a cigarette and then used a match on a bundle of skirts hanging on the wall, handing the match to Apostol who applied it to the bed-trimmings.
Her account was corroborated, to some extent, by the testimonies of Pilar Fajardo and Petra Angeles.

Balmori denied entering the room where the fire occurred.
Despite his denial, the surrounding circumstances—including the behavior of the accused and the testimonies of the female witnesses—favored the reliability of Agapita Rivera’s account.
The defense argued inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, particularly concerning the exact moment Agapita observed the accused.

Physical evidence at the scene included scorched walls, a ruined bed, partially burned bedding, bed-trimmings, and a quantity of women’s apparel.
A detailed inventory provided by the injured party (Agapita Rivera) listed the items and their corresponding values, totaling 101 pesos.
The valuation was based on the cost price, with adjustments for items showing partial wear.

The accused were charged under Article 557 of the Penal Code.
Evidence indicated that the act was intentional in its execution, with the defendants fleeing the scene immediately, which contrasted with the expected conduct of innocent persons.
Consideration was given to the state of intoxication of the accused, which was acknowledged as an extenuating factor.
The location of the offense—the dwelling of the injured party—was considered an aggravating circumstance, although it was later modified.

Whether Agapita Rivera’s testimony, corroborated by other witnesses, was sufficient to identify the accused as the perpetrators.
The conflict between the testimony of Agapita Rivera and the denial provided by defendant Balmori regarding his presence in the room.

Whether the evidence shows that the fire was set intentionally or if it was an accidental consequence of intoxication.
Whether the act should be deemed criminal incendiary conduct given the defendants’ conduct before, during, and after the setting of the fire.

The legitimacy of the calculation and assessment of the property damage as testified by the injured party.
Whether the damage valuation provided a just basis for imposing an indemnity on the accused.

Whether the location of the offense (in the dwelling of the injured party) warranted an aggravating circumstance.
The impact of the defendants’ intoxicated state as a mitigating factor in determining the severity of the criminal penalty.