G.R. No. 93485 - People vs. Cedenio y Rasonable

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93485)

Procedural Posture and Charges

Nine persons were originally charged; seven were brought to trial, four later dropped for insufficiency of evidence, and two remained at large. The trial court convicted Pedro Cedenio, Felipe Antipolo and Jurito Amarga of “Arson with Multiple Murder” under Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613 and imposed sentences of reclusion perpetua. The accused appealed. The Information actually alleged separate criminal acts: assaults, stabbings and hackings on five persons and the setting on fire of the victims’ house. Appellants did not move to quash the Information on multiplicity grounds and thus waived any such defect.

Factual Narrative Established at Trial

Multiple witnesses testified that on the night of 26 November 1986 they heard cries, observed Hilario Dorio’s house on fire, and saw several persons — including the three appellants — exit the burning house brandishing unsheathed bolos. Witnesses positively identified the appellants in the illumination of the blaze. One witness, Perfecto Antifuesto, testified that he had lent his bolo to appellant Cedenio around 7:00 p.m., found it returned with bloodstains around 3:00 a.m., and that Cedenio told him not to worry because “if this incident reaches the court I will answer (for) everything.” The next morning, the victims’ charred bodies were recovered; four bore incised wounds consistent with a bolo, and the infant was charred.

Legal Problem Presented on Appeal

Appellants argued that the prosecution offered no direct evidence they killed the victims or set the house on fire, and that presence at the burning house could be consistent with attempts to save lives. They also challenged the credibility of Antifuesto’s testimony concerning the bolo and asserted their denials and alibis.

Legal Characterization of Offenses; Corrective Ruling by the Court

The Supreme Court held that there is no distinct crime called “arson with homicide” or “arson with multiple murder” as charged; the legal characterization depends on the offender’s dominant intent. If fire is used with the intent to kill, the proper crime is murder; if arson is the primary object and death is a consequential result, the offense is arson resulting in death (as penalized by Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1613). Where arson is used to conceal an antecedent killing, separate crimes of homicide/murder and arson may be charged. Because the Information in this case alleged multiple distinct acts (assaults/stabbings and arson), and because appellants did not object to multiplicity, the Court evaluated each offense as alleged and proven.

Evidentiary Standard and Credibility of Witnesses

The Court gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses, noting that the trial court had the opportunity to observe them and that they were disinterested, with no showing of motive to fabricate. The testimony of Antifuesto was considered credible; the Court rejected appellants’ contention that the return of a bloody bolo was inconsistent with human conduct, reasoning that appellants did not expect Antifuesto to testify against them and that Cedenio’s placatory statement suggested consciousness of guilt.

Circumstantial Evidence and Its Sufficiency

The Court reiterated the requirements for conviction on circumstantial evidence: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which inferences are drawn must be proven; and (3) the combination of circumstances must produce moral certainty of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Applying these principles, the Court found an unbroken chain of circumstances: (a) Cedenio borrowed Antifuesto’s bolo at about 7:00 p.m.; (b) the three appellants were seen at about 10:30 p.m. leaving the burning house wielding bloodstained bolos; (c) Antifuesto’s bolo was returned at about 3:00 a.m. with fresh blood on the blade; (d) Cedenio’s remarks to Antifuesto; and (e) the victims’ bodies bore fatal incised wounds. These facts formed an evidentiary chain identifying the appellants as perpetrators.

Conspiracy and Its Inference

The Court concluded that appellants conspired to attack and kill the victims and to burn the house to conceal the crime. Conspiracy may be inferred from the coordinated acts of the accused that point to a common design; the simultaneous presence of multiple bolo‑wielding attackers and the sequence of stabbing/hacking followed by burning supported that inference.

Treachery Not Established

The Court declined to sustain the qualifying circumstance of treachery. For treachery to attach, the manner of attack or the specific means employed must be proved to show the victims were prevented from defending themselves and that the assailants consciously adopted methods ensuring impunity. Where the manner and development of the attack are not sufficiently proven, treachery cannot be presumed and must be excluded; in such cases, the killing is treated as homicide unless another qualifying circumstance is proven.

Evident Premeditation Found

The Court found evident premeditation established. Evident premeditation requires proof that the accused coolly and dispassionately reflected upon and resolved to commit the offense and that an appreciable interval elapsed to permit a change of mind. The borrowing of Antifuesto’s bolo hours before the attack, the interval between borrowing (circa 7:00 p.m.) and the crime (circa 10:30 p.m.), and the subsequent attempt to mollify Antifuesto when the bolo was returned were taken as overt acts demonstrating conscious planning and consideration of means and consequences.

Specific Criminal Findings and Allocation of Responsibility

On the facts and legal analysis, the Court concluded that appellants were guilty as charged of four counts of murder (the four adults who suffered incised wounds) and one count of arson resulting in death (the infant who perished from burning/incineration or suffocation). The infant’s death was properly characterized as arson resulting in death because t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 93485)

Procedural Posture and Parties

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Accused-Appellants: Pedro Cedenio y Rasonable, Felipe Antipolo y Misa, and Jurito Amarga y Bahi-an.
Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Br. 8) convicted appellants of "Arson with Multiple Murder as defined and penalized under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1613 (amending the law on Arson)" and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua on 16 March 1990; decision penned by Judge Vivencio P. Estrada.
Appellants filed a notice of appeal on 4 April 1990.
Supreme Court (First Division) rendered the decision reported at 303 Phil. 366, G.R. No. 93485, dated 27 June 1994, modifying the trial court decision and pronouncing specific findings and sentences.

Factual Background

On the night of 26 November 1986, at about 10:30 p.m., the house of Hilario Dorio in Barangay Gandingan, Pangantucan, Bukidnon, was discovered to be on fire; the blaze lasted through the night and subsided by dawn.
The burned dwelling was described as the lair of a mandadaut (sorcerer); after the fire, five fatalities were recovered from the rubble including a 22-day-old female infant, Dioscora Dorio.
Four adult victims were Hilario Dorio, Flora Dorio, Maria Dorio and Nicanora Tabanao (the latter identified as a maternal grandmother and said to be a family of sorcerers).
Bodies of four adults bore stab and hack (incised) wounds; the infant had no visible stab or hack wounds and was charred, possibly having died of suffocation or burning.

Witness Accounts

Bonifacio Palomas:
- Roused at about 10:30 p.m. by bangs and women’s cries coming from direction of a neighbor’s house (about 30 meters away).
- Observed Hilario Dorio’s house on fire and saw around seven persons emerge from the burning house, among them appellants Pedro Cedenio, Jurito Amarga and Felipe Antipolo.
- Recognized them as they carried unsheathed bolos; due to fear he remained at home and the following morning accompanied Dorio’s son to the rubble where he saw the charred bodies.
Policarpio Apostadero:
- At about 10:30 p.m. heard dogs barking, went toward a cornfield and observed the Dorio house on fire about 30 meters away.
- Saw people running out of the burning house and positively identified three neighbors—Pedro Cedenio, Jurito Amarga and Felipe Antipolo—holding bolos stained with blood; he retreated and later, the following morning, viewed the burned house and bodies.
Albino Calunod, Sr. (Barangay Captain):
- On the morning of 27 November 1986 was informed that the Dorio residence was gutted and that five occupants were burned to death; proceeded to the scene and found the house razed and five bodies with described wounds.
Perfecto Antifuesto:
- Testified that on 26 November 1986 at around 7:00 p.m. appellant Pedro Cedenio borrowed his bolo.
- Around 3:00 a.m. the following morning a person named Pito Panla-an woke him up to return the bolo; Antifuesto found bloodstains on the handle and fresh blood on the blade when unsheathed.
- About thirty minutes later Cedenio arrived and said, in effect, "do not worry, if this incident reaches the court I will answer (for) everything."

Physical and Medical Evidence

Bodies recovered showed:
- Hilario Dorio: wounds on head and chest.
- Flora Dorio: wound on leg and head almost severed.
- Maria Dorio: wounds in the neck and left nipple.
- Nicanora Tabanao: wound in the stomach.
- Infant Dioscora Dorio: charred to the bone; no stab or hack wounds.
Death certificates for the four adult victims state cause of death as "incised wounds"; infant's death attributed to "burns."

Charges and Information

Trial Information, as amended, charged appellants with six distinct criminal acts alleging that they willfully, unlawfully and criminally attacked, assaulted and stabbed the five victims inflicting multiple mortal wounds and set on fire and burned the house of the victims.
Although the trial court’s dispositive portion described the crime as "Arson with Multiple Murder as defined and penalized under Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613," the Supreme Court noted there is no such complex crime.
Nine persons were originally charged; two remained at large; seven were tried before the court; four of those were dropped for insufficiency of evidence; three (the appellants) were convicted by the trial court.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

Trial court found appellants guilty of the charge as framed (described as "Arson with Multiple Murder" under Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1613).
Trial court sentenced appellants to reclusion perpetua.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses and that the court was morally convinced of the appellants’ guilt, but recognized errors in the legal characterization of the offense charged.

Appellants’ Contentions on Appeal

Appellants argued lack of direct and positive evidence that they killed the victims and burned the house.
They contended that being seen coming out of the burning house could have alternative explanations (i.e., attempting to save life and property).
Appellants asserted that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were contrary to human experience — specifically that Antifuesto’s account of his bolo being borrowed and returned with blood was improbable because criminals would not openly carry instruments used in committing crime.
They relied on denials and alibis, claiming their presence in the area was to save life and property; for example, appellant Cedenio claimed he cut banana trunks to throw into the fire and appellant Antipolo said he gathered soil to help put out the blaze.

Issues before the Supreme Court

Whether appellants were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes alleged in the Information.
Whether the charge of "Arson with Multiple Murder" is a valid complex crime under the law.
Whether evidence presented, including circumstantial evidence, sufficed to establish guilt and the presence of qualifying or aggravating circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation,