Title
People vs. Soria
Case
G.R. No. 248372
Decision Date
Aug 27, 2020
A house fire led to a death; circumstantial evidence, including stolen items and an admission, convicted appellant of qualified arson with homicide.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248372)

Procedural Posture

Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment and stipulated at pre-trial only to the fact of her hiring by Parcon through Arizo Manpower Services. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 7, Cebu City) convicted her of Qualified Arson and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua, awarding temperate and exemplary damages and compensation for the victim’s heirs. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification (added moral damages and interest). The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and affirmed the conviction as Arson with Homicide, while increasing certain damage awards and ordering interest.

Facts Established by the Prosecution

Prosecution witnesses established that during the early morning of February 22, 2012, Parcon and family were roused by smoke and found their house burning; occupants escaped through a bedroom fire exit; Cornelia Tagalog’s burned remains were recovered; appellant was initially missing; neighbor Umandak encountered a woman (later identified as appellant) at about 4:00 a.m. carrying a black travel bag and a gray shoulder bag (the latter later identified as belonging to Cornelia); appellant allegedly jumped over a fence to Holy Family Village II and left behind the travel bag; police later arrested appellant and recovered from her a gray shoulder bag containing personal effects of Cornelia and two cellular phones that Parcon identified as his; a TV reporter (Sorote) testified that appellant admitted during an interview that she burned employment documents in Parcon’s home office and was willing to accept the consequences.

Appellant’s Account and Defense

Appellant denied committing arson. She claimed she left the Parcon household on the night of February 21, 2012, with Cornelia’s assistance because she wanted to go home to sick children; she asserted Cornelia was to return to collect appellant’s belongings and send a text message which never came; appellant contended she went to Talisay City by taxi and offered an alternative explanation for her absence from the burning scene.

Trial Court’s Findings and Rationale

The RTC found guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and appellant’s purported admission. The court emphasized (1) the undisputed fact of the house burning and Cornelia’s death; (2) the extrajudicial admission to reporter Sorote that she burned employment papers; and (3) Umandak’s testimony identifying appellant as the person he encountered shortly after the fire, carrying items later identified as belonging to the victim. The RTC concluded the burning was deliberate and malicious and imposed reclusion perpetua with awards for temperate and exemplary damages and compensation for Cornelia’s heirs.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Modifications

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain pointing to appellant as perpetrator. The CA gave weight to the appellant’s voluntary interview statements to the reporter and to the recovery of the victim’s and complainant’s belongings from appellant. The appellate court modified damages by awarding moral damages to the heirs of Cornelia and ordered six percent interest per annum on temperate and exemplary damages from finality of decision to full payment.

Supreme Court’s Issues on Review

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence and whether appellant’s admission to the reporter was admissible, given her detention and claims of coercion. The Court also considered appropriate penalties and the quantum of damages.

Legal Standard on Circumstantial Evidence Applied

The Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence is permissible and can prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt if three requisites are satisfied: (1) multiple circumstances are present; (2) the foundational facts are proven; and (3) the combined circumstances produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. The Court cited precedent recognizing that circumstantial evidence may sustain convictions for arson when forming an unbroken chain pointing to the accused.

Application of the Standard to the Record

Applying the threefold test, the Supreme Court found the prosecution established an unbroken chain: the timing and nature of the fire, appellant’s presence at or near the scene before and after the incident, recovery from appellant of personal effects and cellular phones identified by Parcon and by Cornelia’s common-law partner as belonging to the victim, Umandak’s identification of appellant soon after the fire, and appellant’s own statements to the reporter describing burning employment papers in the home office which led to the conflagration. These combined facts were held consistent with appellant’s guilt and inconsistent with innocence or other rational hypotheses.

Admissibility of Extrajudicial Admission to Reporter

The Supreme Court held appellant’s admission to the news reporter admissible. It relied on jurisprudence that being interviewed while in a detenti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.