G.R. No. 104725 - People vs. Agguihao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104725)

Information, Allegation, and the Crime Charged

The information alleged that on or about August 28, 1988, in Lagawe, Ifugao, within the RTC’s jurisdiction, the accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire to the spouses Antonio Eheng and Betty Eheng’s inhabited house and dwelling, thereby causing the complete destruction of the house and damage to the owner amounting to P30,000.00.

Factual Background: The Burning of the Ehengs’ House

The spouses Antonio and Betty Eheng were former residents of Lona, Lagawe, Ifugao. Their dwelling was a native house with sawali walls, a roof of cogon with some G.I. sheets, and a hardwood floor. A pigpen stood at the back of the house. On August 28, 1988, the house was burned down.

Their daughter, Carolyn Eheng, then ten years old, was in the premises in the morning of that day, playing and eating pomelo when the accused arrived. He asked her where her parents were. Carolyn innocently answered that her mother went to the kaingin and her father was out selling ice-buko. The accused then instructed Carolyn that when her parents returned home, she should tell them that they would have to leave because he would destroy the house. He directed her to fetch her younger sister from inside the house.

After Carolyn complied, the accused took a hammer and gas, went to the pigpen, smashed its roof, and, after driving the pigs away, set the pigpen on fire using cogon grass he had gathered. He then struck the roof of the house with a piece of wood until it collapsed. He gathered cogon grass that had fallen and scattered it at the foot of the house’s posts. He set the scattered cogon grass on fire. Carolyn observed the post turning into ember and could do nothing. She went to the home of her aunt, Lourdes Rasote, about fifty meters away, and relayed what had happened.

Later, after leaving the kaingin in the afternoon, Betty saw smoke coming from their house. She saw the burning pigpen and the accused gathering cogon grass beside the house’s post. Using a bottle, the accused poured something on the cogon, set it on fire, and then left. Betty attempted to save their properties and extinguished the flame on the post. However, the pigpen had already been razed. Betty then searched for the children, who were staying temporarily with Lourdes for the afternoon.

Antonio Eheng did not know about the burning when he headed home at around five o’clock in the afternoon. On his way near the town hall, policeman Bonifacio Bogbog advised him not to proceed to their house, telling him that his sister had informed the police that the accused had gone to the station, had requested that the children be sent out, and had then burned the house and destroyed the pigpen. Antonio followed the children’s plea not to go to Lona.

In the evening, Antonio asked Betty to retrieve blankets from their house. As Betty approached, she saw a man moving in the premises. The man lighted a match, and the house caught fire. Betty recognized the man as the accused. The accused withdrew when he saw that the house was already on fire. Betty immediately reported the incident to Antonio. For safety reasons, they did not report that same evening, but they reported the incident the following morning, on August 29, 1988, with sworn statements taken by Patrolman Clemencio Kimayong and Corporal Gregorio Dangayo, Jr. The sworn statement of Carolyn was taken on the following day.

The spouses testified that the accused burned the house because the accused claimed the land on which their house was erected. The accused allegedly insisted he had bought the property from Mrs. Agnes Gawi. The Eheng spouses countered that the land belonged to Antonio’s grandmother and that the burned house had been built long ago by their ancestors. They valued the house at P30,000.00, considering its age.

Defense Theory: Alibi and Documentary Submissions

The defense was anchored on alibi. The accused claimed that from August 28, 1988 until September 1, 1988, he was on official business at the DOH-Regional Health Office No. 2 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. He presented a Visitors’ Logbook showing handwritten entries attributed to him, including that on August 28, 1988, he was “2:00 P.M./ 8:00 A.M.” in the logbook.

He also submitted an un-numbered Special Order dated August 19, 1988, issued by German A. Mabbayad, OIC-Chief of Hospital, directing travel to the regional office. He further presented an Itinerary of Travel dated September 7, 1988, and a Certificate of Appearance dated August 31, 1988, signed by Records Officer Basilio Molina. Defense witnesses supported his story: Domingo Bat-tong, security guard on duty, testified that the accused affixed his name in the logbook and that he saw the accused at the dormitory from August 28 until August 30, and on September 1 in the Records Section. Dr. German Mabbayad testified that he issued the Special Order and identified his signature on the Itinerary of Travel for reimbursement purposes.

RTC Findings: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses and Rejection of Alibi

The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible and held that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It declared that the defense of alibi was not supported by competent and convincing evidence. It accepted that the accused was positively identified as the arsonist by eyewitness testimony, including the testimony of the ten-year-old Carolyn and the testimony of Betty.

The RTC further characterized the offense and penalty under Presidential Decree No. 1613. It applied the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua and, finding a special aggravating circumstance under Section 4, paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 1613, imposed the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC reasoned that the accused burned the Ehengs’ house to drive them away due to their dispute over the land, and that the uncontradicted and unrebutted evidence showed motive consistent with the statutory aggravating circumstance.

Accordingly, the RTC convicted the accused and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify Antonio Eheng for P30,000.00 as civil liability, with costs de officio.

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, the accused argued: first, that the RTC erred in convicting him by relying heavily on the testimonies of Antonio, Betty, and Carolyn despite their close relationship and alleged contradictions and inconsistencies; second, that the RTC erred in failing to appreciate the defense of alibi supported by documentary evidence and purportedly unbiased witnesses; and third, that the RTC erred in imposing reclusion perpetua because it allegedly failed to establish the special aggravating circumstance as properly alleged in the information.

Appellate Court’s Evaluation of Witness Credibility

The Court sustained the conviction. It held that the accused was positively identified by two witnesses as the arsonist. It emphasized that Carolyn, being ten years old, saw the accused place cogon on the posts and set it on fire and also saw the accused burn the pigpen. It also relied on Betty’s testimony that she saw the accused set the remaining house on fire during the afternoon or noon time frame of August 28, 1988, and held that even if Betty did not see the accused during the specific evening incident, criminal liability for arson was already consummated once the accused intentionally burned the house earlier that day.

The accused pointed to an alleged inconsistency about the time of the pigpen burning, claiming Carolyn stated morning and Betty stated afternoon. The Court held that such inconsistency deserved scant consideration. It found Carolyn’s testimony credible because it was replete with minutiae of the incident. The Court considered it implausible for a child of Carolyn’s age to fabricate the story. It also found that Betty’s testimony did not contradict Carolyn’s because Betty left the kaingin in the afternoon and therefore did not actually observe the pigpen burning.

The Court also rejected insinuations that the Ehengs had a hand in the arson. It considered it unbelievable that they would set their own modest house on fire based on the claimed motive of “avoidance of prevention.” It found, instead, that the evidence showed the accused had the grudge, since he asserted ownership over the land and sought to drive the Ehengs away. It agreed with the observation attributed to the Solicitor General that burning their own house would destroy evidence of actual occupancy and thus weaken their claim on the land.

Finally, the Court reiterated the rule that great respect should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the trial court because it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying. It also held that family relationship alone did not render the witnesses’ testimonies inadmissible or devoid of probative value.

Alibi: Documentary Evidence and Witness Testimony Held Inadequate

The Court held that the accused could not exculpate himself by relying on the documentary evidence supporting alibi. It found the Visitors’ Logbook unreliable. The logbook, as shown by witness Domingo Bat-tong, indicated that around two o’clock in the afternoon of August 28, 1988, the accused was at the regional office “to follow-up official matters.” The Court took judicial notice that August 28, 1988 was a Sunday, and it reasoned that government offices do not transact official business on Sundays. It thus seriously doubted the claim that the accused was in Tuguegarao on the date of the arson.

The Court also noted that the logbook revealed an apparent incompleteness: it showed no visitors registered between June 21, 1988 and August 28, 1988. Given the “busy” nature of a people-oriented regional office, the Court considered it incredible that there were no entries for that long period. It further held that Bat-tong failed to satisfactorily explain the absence of entries in that period, and the witness’s demeanor did not reflect sincerity.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 104725)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case involved the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee and Damiano Agihaoa (sic) / Damiano Aggihao as accused-appellant.
Damiano Aggihao was charged with arson before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 14) of Lagawe, Ifugao.
After arraignment on December 5, 1989, the accused pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
The trial court rendered a Decision dated December 23, 1991, convicting the accused and imposing reclusion perpetua with civil liability.
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting credibility, the rejection of alibi, and the penalty imposed.
The Court affirmed the conviction in toto.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information dated July 21, 1989 alleged that on or about August 28, 1988 at Lagawe, Ifugao, the accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire to the inhabited house and dwelling owned by Antonio Eheng, causing its complete destruction.
The Information alleged that the destruction caused damage valued at P30,000.00, and charged the accused with “CONTRARY TO LAW.”
The burned structure was a native house with walls of sawali, a roof of cogon with some G.I. sheets, and a hardwood floor, with a pigpen at the back.
On the morning of August 28, 1988, the accused approached Carolyn Eheng, a ten-year-old daughter of Antonio and Betty Eheng, while she was playing and eating pomelo.
The accused asked Carolyn the whereabouts of her parents, and she told him that her mother was at the kaingin and her father was out selling ice-buko.
The accused instructed Carolyn that when her parents returned home, she should tell them that they would leave the house because the accused would destroy it.
The accused ordered Carolyn to fetch her younger sister from inside the house.
The accused then took a hammer and gas, smashed the pigpen roof, drove away the pigs, and set the pigpen on fire using cogon grass.
After burning the pigpen, the accused hit the roof of the house with a piece of wood until it collapsed, gathered fallen cogon, scattered it at the post area, and again set it on fire.
Carolyn observed her house posts turn into embers, after which she went to her aunt Lourdes Rasote about fifty meters away and reported the incident around noontime.
Later that day, Betty Eheng left the kaingin in the afternoon and noticed smoke emanating from the house.
Betty saw the accused gathering cogon grass and pouring a substance from a bottle, then setting fire to the cogon beside the post area, and then leaving.
Betty tried to extinguish the flame on the post area but the pigpen had already been razed.
Antonio Eheng had no inkling of the burning when he returned around five o’clock in the afternoon, having been advised by policeman Bonifacio Bogbog not to proceed home due to the children’s report that the accused had burned the house and destroyed the pigpen.
Betty later retrieved blankets and observed a mysterious man igniting the premises; the flash illuminated the man’s face and Betty recognized him as the accused, who then retreated when he saw the house was already on fire.
The Eheng spouses did not report immediately because of safety concerns, but they reported to authorities the following morning, August 29, 1988, with sworn statements taken by police officers.
Antonio and Betty testified that the accused burned the house because he claimed the land occupied by the Eheng house, alleging purchase from Mrs. Agnes Gawi, while the Eheng spouses claimed ownership by Antonio’s grandmother.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused argued that the trial court erred in convicting him by overvaluing the testimonies of Antonio, Betty, and Carolyn Eheng despite close family relationship and alleged contradictions.
The accused contended that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate the defense of alibi, supported by documentary evidence.
The accused asserted that the trial court imposed reclusion perpetua without clear proof that a special aggravating circumstance existed.
The appeal thus centered on the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the sufficiency of alibi evidence, and the correctness of the penalty based on any aggravating circumstance.

Prosecution Evidence and Credibility

The Court found that the accused was positively identified as the arsonist by two witnesses.
The Court credited Carolyn’s testimony that she saw the accused place cogon on the post area and set it on fire, and also that she saw him burn the pigpen.
The Court also credited Betty’s testimony that she saw the accused set to flame what remained of the house when she returned to retrieve blankets on August 28, 1988.
The Court held that even if Betty did not actually witness the first burning of the pigpen, the accused still could not escape liability because arson became consummated upon intentional burning earlier that day.
The Court discounted the defense insinuation of fabrication based on an alleged inconsistency as to whether the pigpen burned in the morning or the afternoon.
The Court found the supposed inconsistency to deserve scant consideration because Carolyn’s testimony contained numerous detailed minutiae of the incident.
The Court found it difficult for a tender-age child to concoct the account, particularly given the absence of demonstrated knowledge of the land misunderstanding.
The Court concluded that Betty’s inability to see who burned the pigpen did not contradict Carolyn’s narration, because Betty had left for the kaingin and thus was not an eyew