G.R. No. 144294 - Ramos vs. Ramos

The defendant, Gregorio Miranda, was charged with the offense of burning a banca (a small boat) anchored on the shore of Binan.
The banca, owned by Luis Yanco, was operated by a manager (Sylvester Lopez) and a pilot (Eulalio Almendrolo) and was engaged in transporting passengers from arriving steamships.
The operation of bancas in Binan was regulated by municipal ordinances, and competition among operators was fierce, with some owners, such as Gesualdo Gano (a municipal councilman), being direct competitors.

At the time of the incident, Miranda held the office of inspector of bancas, a position that required him to keep vigil over the boats and ensure their safe operation and compliance with local ordinances.
As inspector, he had previously ordered the manager and the pilot of the banca to comply with certain operational directions, including restrictions on how they could approach steamships, particularly those belonging to rival operators like Luis Yanco.
Testimony indicated that Miranda's actions were influenced by personal jealousy and enmity towards the banca’s management, largely due to competition, as his own banca was smaller and less capable.

On December 31, after the banca had finished unloading its passengers, Miranda allegedly called the pilot and threatened that failure to comply with his orders would result in harm to both the banca and the pilot.
That same night, around 10 o’clock, the banca was seen engulfed in flames which later resulted in its complete destruction.
Evidence pointed to an incendiary origin for the fire:

Remains of dried branches of cane were found near the burned banca.
The noticeable odor of petroleum further suggested that the fire was deliberately set and not accidental.

Additional facts noted that the banca was moored for the night without any crew aboard and that there were no accidental sources of ignition present.

A key witness, the pilot Eulalio Almendrolo, testified that he experienced hindrances in operating his banca due to Miranda’s directives which were motivated by rivalry and jealousy.
Testimony revealed that Miranda, despite being the inspector and residing close enough to the scene of the fire, failed to attend the site when the alarm was raised and did not fulfill his duty in the immediate aftermath.
Miranda’s own testimony was marked by contradictions:

He initially claimed ignorance of the burning, later admitting that he had been aware via reports from bystanders.
His account of his whereabouts on the night of the fire was inconsistent, shifting from being in a casa mortuoria to subsequently retiring to his home.

There was also evidence of his neglect in reporting the fire or taking any remedial action the following day, as mandated by his official duties.

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s guilt in the burning of the banca.
The reliability and contradictions in Miranda’s own testimony were scrutinized to determine if they negated the cumulative circumstantial evidence.

Whether Miranda’s failure to perform his duty as inspector (failing to attend the scene of the fire and to report the incident appropriately) contributed significantly to the conclusion of his culpability.
The issue of whether his personal rivalry and enmity, leading to instructions and threats against the banca’s crew, constituted a criminal act supporting his involvement in the incendiary burning.

The appropriateness of the lower court’s imposition of the sentence in light of the error regarding subsidiary imprisonment for indemnification.
The need to modify the penalty to ensure the proper application of subsidiary punishment in case of insolvency for paying indemnification.