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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93485)

Factual Background

On the night of 26 November 1986 the house of Hilario Dorio in Barangay Gandingan, Pangantucan, Bukidnon, was set ablaze. Neighbors awakened by noise and cries saw persons emerge from the burning house. When the fire subsided, five persons were found dead in the debris, including a twenty-two day old female infant. Four adult victims bore stab and hack wounds; the infant was charred and showed no external stab wounds. The Dorio family was described in the record as allegedly regarded in the village as a family of sorcerers.

Eyewitness Testimony

Witnesses who testified for the prosecution included Bonifacio Palomas, Policarpio Apostadero, and Perfecto Antifuesto. Palomas testified that at about ten-thirty p.m. he saw seven persons, among them the three accused-appellants, emerge from the burning house carrying unsheathed bolos; the fire light enabled him to recognize them. Apostadero testified that from his vantage he saw people running out of the burning house and identified the same three neighbors holding bolos stained with blood. Antifuesto testified that Pedro Cedenio borrowed his bolo at about seven p.m. and that the bolo was returned at about three a.m. with fresh blood on the blade and bloodstains on the handle; Antifuesto related that Cedenio afterwards told him not to worry because “if this incident reaches the court I will answer for everything.”

Procedural History

Nine persons were originally charged in connection with the incident; two remained at large and four of those who were brought to trial were dropped for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court convicted Pedro Cedenio, Felipe Antipolo, and Jurito Amarga on 16 March 1990 of “Arson with Multiple Murder as defined and penalized under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1613” and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The three convicted filed a timely appeal.

Issues on Appeal

The accused-appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove that they killed the victims or burned the house. They argued that their presence at the burning house was consistent with an effort to save life and property. They further urged that the testimony of witness Antifuesto was improbable because criminals would not publicly use and return the weapon used in the commission of a crime, and they invoked their denials and asserted alibis.

The Parties’ Contentions before the Court

The People of the Philippines relied on the eyewitness identifications, the testimony about the borrowed and returned bolo bearing bloodstains, and the post-fire condition of the victims to sustain a conviction. The prosecution maintained that the proven circumstances constituted an unbroken chain of evidence from which conspiracy, murder and arson could be inferred. The accused-appellants insisted that the sightings could be otherwise explained and that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of murder and arson beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court affirmed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and concluded that the proven circumstances formed an unbroken chain sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the trial court’s label of “Arson with Multiple Murder” because no such complex crime exists. The Court modified the conviction to find each appellant guilty of four counts of murder and one count of arson resulting in death, and imposed on each appellant four terms of reclusion perpetua for the four murders and another term of reclusion perpetua for the arson, all to be served successively pursuant to Art. 70, The Revised Penal Code. The Court also held the appellants jointly and severally liable to the heirs of the victims in the amount of P50,000.00 for each death.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Arson and Homicide

The Court reiterated the settled rule that whether death resulting from fire is prosecuted as murder or as arson depends on the actor’s primary intent. When fire is used as the means to kill a particular person and that objective is attained, the crime is murder. When arson is the principal objective and death is a mere consequence, the crime is arson. The Court observed that if arson was resorted to merely to conceal a prior killing, both murder and arson may be charged and punished separately. The Information in the case, though inartfully captioned, charged distinct acts of stabbing and hacking and the setting afire of the house; the accused did not move to quash on multiplicity grounds and thus the defect was waived.

Circumstantial Evidence, Credibility and Conspiracy

The Court applied the established test for conviction by circumstantial evidence: there must be more than one circumstance, the facts from which inferences are drawn must be proven, and the combination of circumstances must produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the proven facts—(1) the borrowing of Antifuesto’s bolo by Pedro Cedenio at 7 p.m., (2) the identification of the three appellants emerging from the burning house at about ten-thirty p.m. with bloodstained bolos, (3) the return of Antifuesto’s bolo with fresh blood at three a.m., (4) Cedenio’s assurance to Antifuesto that he would answer for everything if the matter reached court, and (5) the discovery of fatal incised wounds on the adult victims—constituted an unbroken chain leading reasonably to the appellants’ guilt. The Court held that conspiracy might be inferred from these acts which pointed to a joint purpose or design.

Treachery and Evident Premeditation

The Court declined to uphold the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the prosecution did not prove how the attack was carried out or that the victims were deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves; treachery cannot be presumed and must be proved with clarity. The Court, however, found evident premeditation adequately proven. The interval between the borrowing of the bolo at around seven p.m. and the assault at about ten-thirty p.m., together with the subsequent burning of the house to conceal the killings and Cedenio’s conduct respecting the returned bolo, indicated a cool and deliberate resolve to commit the offense.

Allocation of Criminal Liability among the Victims

The Court held that the four adult victims whose death certificates indicated “incised wounds” were killed by st

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 93485)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted the case against Pedro Cedenio y Rasonable, Felipe Antipolo y Misa, and Jurito Amarga y Bahi-an as accused-appellants.
Nine persons were originally charged, two remained at large, and four were dropped for insufficiency of evidence before trial.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, presided by Judge Vivencio P. Estrada, found the three accused guilty of "Arson with Multiple Murder as defined and penalized under Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1613" and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua on 16 March 1990.
The accused filed a notice of appeal on 4 April 1990, bringing the case to the Supreme Court for review.
The Supreme Court modified the judgment by convicting the appellants of distinct offenses proved in the Information and ordering specific penalties and civil liability.

Key Factual Allegations

On the night of 26-27 November 1986, the residence of Hilario Dorio was discovered ablaze with five occupants dead, including a 22-day-old infant.
Witness Bonifacio Palomas testified that at about ten-thirty in the evening he saw around seven persons, including appellants, emerge from the burning house wielding unsheathed bolos.
Witness Policarpio Apostadero testified that at about the same time he observed people running out of the burning house and recognized appellants holding bolos stained with blood.
Witness Perfecto Antifuesto testified that appellant Pedro Cedenio borrowed his bolo at around seven o'clock in the evening and that the bolo was returned at around three o'clock the following morning with fresh blood on the blade.
The bodies of Hilario Dorio, Flora Dorio, Maria Dorio, and Nicanora Tabanao bore stab and hack wounds, while infant Dioscora Dorio had no wounds but was charred.
The Information alleged six distinct criminal acts including stabbing and setting the house on fire and appellants did not move to quash the Information on the ground of multiplicity.

Issues

Whether the appellants' presence at the burning house and the testimony about the bolo sufficed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the charge of "Arson with Multiple Murder" was a viable legal offense.
Whether the killings were murder or were absorbed by the crime of arson where death resulted under Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1613.
Whether qualifying circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation were proven.
Whether conspiracy could be inferred from the acts of the accused.
Whether civil liability to heirs arises by implication under the criminal action.

Contentions

Appellants contended that their presence at the burning house was consistent with attempts to save life and property and not with perpetration of the crime.
Appellants argued that the testimony of witness Antifuesto was contrary to human experience and improbable because criminals would not openly return a bloodstained weapon.
Appellants asserted denial and alibi and maintained that circumstantial evidence was insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.
The prosecution relied on positive identifications of the appellants leaving the burning house with bolos, the loan and return of Antifuesto's bolo with bloodstains, and the presence of fatal stab and hack wounds on th