G.R. No. 116033 - Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116033)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Incident: September 18, 1996.
Information filed: January 15, 1997 (Criminal Case No. 8307, RTC Branch 48, Masbate City).
Arrest of accused: February 23, 2001.
Trial court decision convicting accused of arson with homicide: September 23, 2011.
Motion for new trial (based on affidavits of recantation) filed November 18, 2011 and denied November 25, 2011.
Court of Appeals decision: March 18, 2015 (affirmed with modification to simple arson).
Supreme Court disposition: affirming with modification and awarding damages (decision dated June 3, 2019 as shown in the prompt).

Facts Established at Trial

On the afternoon of September 18, 1996, while occupants were inside the Perocho house, witnesses Deolina Perocho and her son Jessie observed the accused arrive, shout to Leonardo Sr., and carry a gun. According to the witnesses, the accused gathered dried coconut leaves, fashioned a torch, set fire to the porch/roofing made of coco leaves, and the family escaped by jumping out the rear window. Leonardo Jr., who had been asleep, was left inside and later died from massive burns. The prosecution introduced a post-mortem medical report describing extensive burning and concluding death due to massive burns.

Prosecution Evidence and Identification

The prosecution relied principally on the positive, detailed eyewitness testimonies of Deolina and Jessie Perocho. Both testified to seeing the accused set the torch to the house and to identifying him as the perpetrator. Their narratives included the sequence of events, the family’s escape, and the discovery that Leonardo Jr. was left inside and later died. The trial court credited these testimonies as establishing corpus delicti (that a fire was intentionally set) and identifying the accused as the person who caused it.

Defense Evidence and Theories

The accused invoked denial and an alibi, asserting he was in Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan at the time of the incident. He admitted prior ill feeling with Leonardo Sr. over gold panning activities and contended the prosecution witnesses could not have positively identified him from a distance. No corroborative evidence supported the alibi.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson with homicide under Article 320 (as amended by RA 7659 references in the record and PD 1613 provenance) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnities and damages. The trial court rejected the alibi and found the eyewitnesses credible.

Post-Trial Recantations and Motion for New Trial

Following conviction, Deolina and Jessie executed affidavits of recantation: Deolina claimed the fire originated from a knocked-over kerosene lamp; Jessie said he was not present at the scene. The trial court denied the motion for new trial, noting the 15-year lapse since the incident, the tardy timing of the recantations, and that the recantation affidavits failed to address material matters established at trial.

Court of Appeals Disposition

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s factual findings on credibility but modified the conviction from arson with homicide to simple arson. The CA treated alleged testimonial inconsistencies as immaterial and accepted the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The CA also agreed with the trial court in disregarding the recantations given their timing and insufficiency.

Issues Framed on Further Appeal to the Supreme Court

The appeal raised four issues: (1) whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s credibility findings; (2) whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (3) whether a verdict rendered by a judge different from the trial judge invalidated the conviction; and (4) whether the CA erred in modifying the conviction from arson with homicide to simple arson.

Legal Framework and Elements of Arson

Under PD 1613, arson requires proof that (1) a fire was intentionally set, and (2) the accused was the person who caused it. Section 3 specifies classes of property that attract higher penalties (including inhabited dwellings), while Section 5 prescribes heavier penalties where death results “by reason of or on the occasion of the arson.” The corpus delicti requirement is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and that it was intentionally caused.

Assessment of Witness Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence

The Supreme Court found the trial court’s and CA’s reliance on Deolina and Jessie’s positive, consistent, and detailed testimonies to be justified. Their eyewitness identifications, perseverance through cross-examination, personal stake in the outcome (loss of a child/family member), and the medical evidence of fatal burns collectively established both the intentional setting of the fire and the accused’s identity as the perpetrator. The Court rejected the defense alibi as uncorroborated and inherently weak, noting the lack of evidence showing the accused’s presence elsewhere at the relevant time.

Treatment of Recantations

The Court reiterated the settled rule that recantations, especially those made long after trial or after conviction, are viewed with disfavor and carry little probative weight because they are susceptible to improper inducement. The recantations here were executed fifteen years after the event, were terse and inadequate, and did not satisfactorily address material matters previously testified to; the trial court and appellate court properly discounted them.

Competence of Judge Who Rendered the Decision

The Court addressed the claim that the judge who penned the verdict differed from the judge who heard the trial. It affirmed existing jurisprudence that a judge who did not personally hear the testimony may still validly render a decision based on the stenographic record and other case records; such a circumstance does not, by itself, render the judgment invalid or violate due process. Accordingly, the competence of t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 116033)

Procedural History

Information filed dated January 15, 1997 charging Nestor Dolendo y Fediles with arson resulting in the death of Leonardo Perocho, Jr.; case docketed as Criminal Case No. 8307 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 48, Masbate City.
Appellant remained at large for five years and was arrested on February 23, 2001; on arraignment he pleaded "not guilty."
Trial was conducted with testimony from prosecution witnesses Deolina Perocho and Jessie Perocho and the defense testimony of appellant; stenographic notes reference various trial dates (TSN entries cited).
By Decision dated September 23, 2011, RTC (penned by Judge Arturo Clemente B. Revil) convicted appellant of arson with homicide and imposed reclusion perpetua and monetary awards.
Appellant filed a motion for new trial on November 18, 2011 based on affidavits of recantation by Deolina and Jessie; RTC denied the motion by Order dated November 25, 2011.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05400) resulted in Decision dated March 18, 2015 affirming with modification: conviction reduced to simple arson.
Appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 223098); Resolution dated June 15, 2016 recorded the parties’ adoption of their CA briefs in lieu of supplemental briefs.
Final disposition by the Supreme Court announced June 03, 2019 (Second Division).

Facts as Found at Trial

On the afternoon of September 18, 1996, at about 4:00 p.m., at Sitio Kapatagan, Barangay Capsay, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, the dwelling of Leonardo Perocho, Sr. was set on fire.
Deolina Perocho (complainant and wife of Leonardo Sr.) and three children (Ivy, 1 year; Isalyn, 3 years; Janice, 5 years) were present and eating in the house when the incident began.
Deolina testified she heard appellant shouting "Leonardo, I am already here!" and saw him holding a gun; she observed him gather dried coconut leaves and set the porch/roofing (made of coco leaves) on fire.
Deolina and three children escaped by jumping out the rear window and hiding in a grassy area; Leonardo Jr., a six-year-old son who was asleep, was left behind and later found dead.
Jessie Perocho, Deolina’s 18-year-old son, testified he saw appellant light a torch made of coconut leaves and use it to set the house on fire; he testified he was too frightened to intervene.
Dr. Conchita Ulanday’s post-mortem report described massive burning of the cadaver with extensive tissue loss and exposed internal organs; cause of death was recorded as massive burns.
Prior to the incident, appellant and Leonardo Sr. had a prior altercation; they were not on good terms and Leonardo Sr. had avoided appellant.

Charge and Information Allegations

Information alleged that on or about September 18, 1996, appellant willfully, unlawfully and feloniously set on fire a house owned by Leonardo Perocho, Sr., knowing it to be occupied at that time by one or more persons, and as a result Leonardo Perocho, Jr., a six-year-old boy, suffered massive burns and injuries which directly caused his death thereafter — charged as arson resulting in death (contrary to law).

Prosecution Evidence (Witness Testimony and Forensics)

Deolina Perocho’s trial testimony recounted in detail: appellant’s shouted words, presence of a gun, seeing him gather dried coconut leaves, appellant setting fire to the porch and roofing, the family’s escape through the back window, and the realization that Leonardo Jr. was left asleep inside.
Transcript excerpts show Deolina’s positive identification of appellant at the scene, her description of the method of ignition (dried coconut leaves/torch), and the traumatic circumstances that prevented her from rescuing Leonardo Jr.
Jessie Perocho corroborated Deolina’s account by testifying he personally saw appellant light a torch made of a bundle of coconut leaves and burn the house.
Dr. Conchita Ulanday’s post-mortem medical report provided physical findings of massive burning and concluded death due to massive burns.

Defense Evidence and Contentions

Appellant testified denying guilt and asserting an alibi: he claimed to have been in Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan at the time of the incident.
He acknowledged prior misunderstanding with the Perochos related to gold panning activities and said he knew the family because Leonardo Sr. was one of his mother’s workers.
Appellant contended the prosecution witnesses could not have positively identified him from a distance.

Trial Court Ruling (RTC Decision, Sept. 23, 2011)

RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson with homicide (citing Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659).
Sentence: Reclusion perpetua.
Monetary awards ordered: P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Direction to transfer appellant to the National Bilibid Prison and to credit the period of detention in his favor.
The trial court gave full credence to the positive testimony of the prosecution eyewitnesses and rejected appellant’s alibi.

Motion for New Trial and Affidavits of Recantation

On November 18, 2011, appellant moved for a new trial supported by affidavits of recantation executed by Deolina and Jessie.
Deolina’s recantation averred the fire resulted from a lighted kerosene lamp that fell and struck the wall of the house; Jessie’s recantation asserted he was not near the house at the time.
RTC denied the motion on Novembe