Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION
DANTE BUEBOS and G.R. No. 163938
SARMELITO BUEBOS,
Petitioners, Present:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,* J.,
Acting Chairperson,
- versus - TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,

**

NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
THE PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. March 28, 2008
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REYES, R.T., J.:
THE law on arson has always been a constant source of confusion not only among
members of the bar, but also among those of the bench. The bewilderment often
centers on what law to apply and what penalty to impose.
In this case, the Court is again tasked to determine whether petitioners are
liable for simple arson or arson of an inhabited house which merits a penalty of up
toreclusion perpetua.

Before the Court is a petition to review on certiorari under Rule 45 the

Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification that [2] of the
Regional Trial Court in Tabaco, Albay, finding petitioners Dante Buebos and
Sarmelito Buebos guilty of arson.
The Facts
On January 1, 1994 around 3:00 oclock in the morning, Adelina B. Borbe was in
her house at Hacienda San Miguel, Tabaco, Albay watching over her sick child.
[3]
She was lying down when she heard some noise around the house. She got up
and looked through the window and saw the four accused, Rolando Buela,
Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. congregating in front of
her hut.[4] When she went out, she saw the roof of her nipa hut already on fire. She
shouted for help. Instead of coming to her immediate succor, the four fled.[5]
At some distance away, Olipiano Berjuela heard Adelina scream for help. Olipiano
was then drinking with Pepito Borbe to celebrate New Years Eve. Olipiano
immediately ran to the place and saw a number of people jumping over the
fence. When he focused his flashlight on them, he was able to identify Sarmelito
Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr.[6] He also saw Rolando Buela
running away.[7]
On complaint of Adelina, petitioners Dante and Sarmelito Buebos, together
with Rolando Buela and Antonio Cornel, Jr., were indicted for arson in an
Information bearing the following accusations:

That on or about the 1st day of January, 1994 at 3:00 oclock in

the Barangay Hacienda, Island of San Miguel, Municipality of Tabaco,
Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating
and helping one another, with intent to cause damage, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously set on fire the nipa roof
of the house of ADELINA B. BORBE, to the latters damage and
prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]

The prosecution evidence portraying the foregoing facts was principally

supplied by private complainant Adelina Borbe and Olipiano Berjuela.
Upon the other hand, denial and alibi were the main exculpating line of
petitioners and their co-accused. The trial court summed up the defense evidence in
the following tenor:
The defense contended that the accused were at different places at the
time of the incident; Rolando Buela claimed to be at sitio Tugon,
Malictay, San Miguel, Tabaco, Albay as there was a novena prayer at his
parents house on occasion of the death anniversary of his late
grandfather; Dante Buebos also claimed to have been at Romeo Callejas
having gone there in the evening of December 30, 1993 and left the
place at 12:00 oclock noontime of January 1, 1994; Sarmelito Buebos
asserted that he was at his residence at sitio Malictay, Hacienda, San
Miguel, Tabaco, Albay on the day the incident happened and that he
never left his house; Antonio Cornel, Jr. likewise claimed to be at his
residence at Agas after having visited his in-laws; that he only came to
know of the accusation five (5) days after the incident happened when he
visited his parents at Malictay; witnesses were likewise presented by the
accused to corroborate their testimonies. [9]

RTC and CA Dispositions

On April 7, 1998, the RTC found all of the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of arson. The dispositive part of the judgment of conviction reads:

WHEREFORE, from all the foregoing, this Court finds accused

ROLANDO BUELA, DANTE BUEBOS, SARMELITO BUEBOS and
ANTONIO CORNEL, JR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime charged; accordingly, each of the accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum; and to pay
the cost.

SO ORDERED.[10]

Via a notice of appeal, the four accused elevated the matter to the appellate
court. In their appeal, they contended that (1) the trial court erred in finding them
guilty of the crime of arson; (2) that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy; and
(3) the trial court erred in failing to give weight and credence to their defense of
denial and alibi.
On November 13, 2003, through an eight-page decision penned by Associate
Justice Eliezer R. de los Santos, the CA disposed of the appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Each of the accusedappellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional as
minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum.
SO ORDERED.[11]

In downgrading the penalty, the CA opined that the accused could only be
convicted of simple arson, punishable by prision mayor, and not for burning of an
inhabited house, which is punishable by imprisonment ranging from reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua. According to the appellate court, the information
failed to allege with specificity the actual crime committed. Hence, the accused
should be found liable only for arson in its simple form.[12]

Issues
Dissatisfied, Dante and Sarmelito Buebos have resorted to the present
recourse. The following arguments are now raised for the Courts consideration:
I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THE
BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;

II.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE CASE AT BAR.
[13]

Our Ruling
Overview of the law on arson
The confusion surrounding arson has been confounded by the dearth of annotation
on this part of our penal law. Certainly, the law on arson is one of the least
commented in this jurisdiction. For the guidance of the bench and bar, a brief
legislative history of the body of laws on arson is in order.
Previously, arson was defined and penalized under nine different articles of the
Revised Penal Code: Article 320 (destructive arson), Article 321 (other forms of
arson), Article 322 (cases of arson not included in the preceding articles), Article
323 (arson of property of small value), Article 324 (crimes involving destruction),
Article 325 (burning ones own property to commit arson), Article 326 (setting fire
to property exclusively owned by the offender, Article 326-a (in cases where death
resulted as a consequence of arson), and Article 326-b (prima facie evidence of
arson).

On March 7, 1979, citing certain inadequacies that impede the successful

enforcement and prosecution of arsonists, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos
issued Presidential Decree (P.D) No. 1613. P.D. 1613 supplanted the penal code
provisions on arson. The pertinent parts of the said presidential issuance read:
SECTION 1. Arson. Any person who burns or sets fire to the
property of another shall be punished by prision mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his
own property under circumstances which expose to danger the life or
property of another.

SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. The penalty of reclusion

temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishments where
explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are
stored;
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any
edifice devoted to culture, education or social services;
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where
people usually assemble;
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft,
or conveyance for transportation of persons or
property;
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any
legislative, judicial, administrative or other official
proceedings;
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing
tenement, shopping center, public or private market,
theater or movie house or any similar place or building;
7. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated
in a populated or congested area.
SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of
its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine
shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain
field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The
penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its maximum period:
1. If committed with the intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;

3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards

the owner or occupant of the property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate. The offense is committed
by a syndicate if it is planned or carried out by a group
of three (3) or more persons.
SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or
on the occasion of arson death results, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed.
SECTION 6. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. Any of the
following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of
the building or establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or
materials are stored within the building not necessary in
the business of the offender nor for household use.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or
combustible substances or materials soaked therewith
or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a
fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found
in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially
more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of
the policy.
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance
policy more than two fires have occurred in the same or
other premises owned or under the control of the
offender and/or insured.
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the
effects insured and stored in a building or property had
been withdrawn from the premises except in the
ordinary course of business.
7. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration
was made before the fire in exchange for the desistance
of the offender or for the safety of other person or
property of the victim.

SECTION 7. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. Conspiracy to commit

arson shall be punished by prision mayor in its minimum period.
SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The building which
is the object of arson including the land on which it is situated shall
be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can
prove that he has no participation in nor knowledge of such arson despite
the exercise of due diligence on his part.

On November 11, 1980, the law on arson was again revisited via P.D. No.
1744. The new law expanded the definition of destructive arson by way of
reinstating Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code. The amendatory legislation also
paved the way for the reimposition of the capital punishment on destructive
arsonists.
When Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659 (An Act to Impose the Death Penalty
on Certain Heinous Crimes) was passed on December 13, 1993, Article 320 again
underwent a revision. As it now stands, Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code is
worded, thus:
Art. 320. Destructive Arson. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one
single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous
burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to
the public in general or where people usually gather or
congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not
limited to, official governmental function or business,
private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop,
meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a
definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels,
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or
stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender
had knowledge that there are persons in said building
or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also
of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.

3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or

airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or
for public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service
of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of
concealing or destroying evidence of another violation
of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying
circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise
be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or
more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their
purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely
constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or
fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or
general museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized
under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be
imposed.

Of course, with the repeal of the Death Penalty Law on June 24, 2006 through R.A.
No. 9346, arson is no longer a capital offense.[14]
We proceed to the crux of the petition.
Circumstantial
evidence
petitioners culpability

points

to

Petitioners score the CA for convicting them of arson based on circumstantial

evidence. They argue that the inference that they were responsible for the burning
of private complainants hut was not duly proven by the People.
Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in
issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established.Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would
result in setting a felon free.[15]
At the outset, We may well emphasize that direct evidence of the
commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of
guilt.Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind
intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.
[16]
Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 5 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence.[17]
The following are the requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for a
conviction: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, is the one who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction based
on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven
in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.[18]
After a careful review of the evidence presented by both parties, We find that the
circumstantial evidence extant in the records is sufficient to identify petitioners as
the authors of the burning of the hut of private complainant Adelina Borbe:
1. Private complainant heard some noise emanating from outside her house
at around 3:00 a.m.;
2. When she went out to check the disturbance, private complainant saw
petitioners, together with their two other co-accused, standing in front of the house;
3. Moments later, the roof of her house caught fire;

4. Petitioners and their cohorts absconded while private complainant

desperately shouted for help.
The facts from which the cited circumstances arose have been proved
through positive testimony.[19] Evidently, these circumstances form an unbroken
chain of events leading to one fair conclusion the culpability of petitioners for the
burning of the hut. The Court is convinced that the circumstances, taken together,
leave no doubt that petitioner perpetrated the arson.
Conspiracy evident
action of petitioners

from

coordinated

Petitioners next contend that conspiracy was erroneously appreciated by both the
trial and appellate courts. They posit that the finding of conspiracy was premised
on speculation and conjecture.
The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime
and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence, as
the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common
understanding among them with respect to the commission of the
offense. Corollarily, it is not necessary to show that two or more persons met
together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an
unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried
out. The rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in
concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design. In such a case,
the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused will thereby be
deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[20]

In the case at bench, conspiracy was evident from the coordinated

movements of petitioners Dante and Sarmelito Buebos. Both of them stood outside
the house of private complainant Adelina. They were part of the group making
boisterous noise in the vicinity. Petitioners also fled together while the roof of
Adelinas house was ablaze. These acts clearly show their joint purpose and design,
and community of interest.

We quote with approval the CA observation along this line:

Accused-appellants assertion that conspiracy has not been established is
belied by the accounts of the prosecution witness. The manner by which
the accused-appellants behaved after the private complainant shouted for
help clearly indicated a confederacy of purpose and concerted action on
the part of the accused-appellants. Even if there is no direct evidence
showing that all of the accused had prior agreement on how to set the
roof of the house on fire, the doctrine is well settled that conspiracy need
not be proved by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the
crime. Very seldom such prior agreement be demonstrable since, in the
nature of things, criminal undertakings are only rarely documented by
agreements in writing.[21]

Crime committed and the penalty

The RTC sentenced all four accused to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six
(6) years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. On appeal, the CA
reduced the sentence to six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten
(10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. The CA ratiocinated:
The information charges accused-appellants with violation of P.D. 1613
without specifying the particular provision breached. The information
having failed to allege whether or not the burnt house is inhabited, and
not having been established that the house is situated in a populated or
congested area, accused-appellants should be deemed to have only been
charged with plain arson under Section 1 of the decree. Under Section 1
of the decree, the offense of simple arson committed is punishable
by prision mayor.
There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in the case
at bar accused-appellants should be sentenced to suffer the penalty
of prision mayor in its medium period as provided under Article 321,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, by Presidential
Decree No. 1613. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the

minimum penalty should be anywhere within the range of prision

correccional.[22]

The legal basis of the trial court in convicting petitioners of arson is Section 3,
paragraph 2 of P.D. No. 1613. The said provision of law reads:
SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
xxxx
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;

The elements of this form of arson are: (a) there is intentional burning; and
(b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. [23] Admittedly,
there is a confluence of the foregoing elements here. However, the information
failed to allege that what was intentionally burned was an inhabited house or
dwelling. That is fatal.
Sections 8 and 9 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure state:
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
punishing it.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. The acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances for the
court to pronounce judgment.

Under the new rules, the information or complaint must state the designation
of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic
aggravating circumstances. Otherwise stated, the accused will not be convicted of
the offense proved during the trial if it was not properly alleged in the information.
[24]

Perusing the information, there was no allegation that the house intentionally
burned by petitioners and their cohorts was inhabited. Rather, the information
merely recited that accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another,
with intent to cause damage, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and maliciously set on fire the nipa roof of the house of ADELINA B. BORBE, to
the latters damage and prejudice.[25]
Although the rule took effect only on December 1, 2000, while the
petitioners were convicted by the RTC on April 7, 1998, it may be applied
retroactively. It is elementary that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive
application insofar as they benefit the accused.[26]
In fine, petitioners can be convicted only of simple arson, under Section 1,
paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1613, punishable by prision mayor.
This is not a case of first impression. This Court has, on a number of occasions,
modified the RTC and CA judgments for having applied the wrong law and penalty
on arson. In People v. Soriano,[27] the accused was found guilty of destructive
arson, then a capital offense. On automatic review, the Court held that he should be
held liable only for simple arson. The explanation:

However, we believe that the applicable provision of law should

be Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613, which imposes a penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua for other cases of arson as the properties
burned by accused-appellant are specifically described as houses,
contemplating inhabited houses or dwellings under the aforesaid
law. The descriptions as alleged in the second Amended Information
particularly refer to the structures as houses rather than as buildings or
edifices. The applicable law should therefore be Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD

1613, and not Art. 320, par. 1 of the Penal Code. In case of ambiguity in
construction of penal laws, it is well-settled that such laws shall be
construed strictly against the government, and literally in favor of the
accused.
The elements of arson under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613 are: (a)
there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an
inhabited house or dwelling. Incidentally, these elements concur in the
case at bar.
The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple
Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal
offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code
constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes for
being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their
inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. On the
other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are
crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law
punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple Arson
contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and
national security implications than Destructive Arson. However, acts
falling under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into
Destructive Arson depending on the qualifying circumstances present.
In the present case, the act committed by accused-appellant
neither appears to be heinous nor represents a greater degree of
perversity and viciousness as distinguished from those acts punishable
under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code. No qualifying circumstance
was established to convert the offense to Destructive Arson. The special
aggravating circumstance that accused-appellant was motivated by spite
or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned cannot
be appreciated in the present case where it appears that he was acting
more on impulse, heat of anger or risen temper rather than real spite or
hatred that impelled him to give vent to his wounded ego. Nothing can
be worse than a spurned lover or a disconsolate father under the
prevailing circumstances that surrounded the burning of
the Cimagala house. Thus, accused-appellant must be held guilty of
Simple Arson penalized under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613 for the act of
intentionally burning an inhabited house or dwelling. [28]

An oversight of the same nature was addressed by this Court in the more recent
case of People v. Malngan.[29] Said the Court in Malngan:
The ultimate query now is which kind of arson is accusedappellant guilty of?
As previously discussed, there are two (2) categories of the crime
of arson: 1) destructive arson, under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; and 2) simple arson, under
Presidential Decree No. 1613. Said classification is based on the kind,
character and location of the property burned, regardless of the value of
the damage caused, 48 to wit:
Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659,
contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and
private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories
and other military, government or commercial establishments by
any person or group of persons. The classification of this type of crime
is
known
as Destructive
Arson,
which
is
punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. The reason for the law is self-evident: to
effectively discourage and deter the commission of this dastardly crime,
to prevent the destruction of properties and protect the lives of innocent
people. Exposure to a brewing conflagration leaves only destruction and
despair in its wake; hence, the State mandates greater retribution to
authors of this heinous crime. The exceptionally severe punishment
imposed for this crime takes into consideration the extreme danger to
human lives exposed by the malicious burning of these structures; the
danger to property resulting from the conflagration; the fact that it is
normally difficult to adopt precautions against its commission, and the
difficulty in pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the greater impact on the
social, economic, security and political fabric of the nation. [Emphasis
supplied]

If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized

under Art. 320, death should result, the mandatory penalty of death shall
be imposed.
On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B of
The Revised Penal Code remains the governing law for Simple Arson.
This decree contemplates the malicious burning of public and private
structures, regardless of size, not included in Art. 320, as amended by
RA 7659, and classified as other cases of arson. These include houses,
dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways,
bus
stations,
airports,
wharves
and
other industrial
establishments. Although the purpose of the law on Simple Arson is to
prevent the high incidence of fires and other crimes involving
destruction, protect the national economy and preserve the social,
economic and political stability of the nation, PD 1613 tempers the
penalty to be meted to offenders. This separate classification of Simple
Arson recognizes the need to lessen the severity of punishment
commensurate to the act or acts committed, depending on the particular
facts and circumstances of each case. [Emphasis supplied]
To emphasize:
The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple
Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal
offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code
(as amended) constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous
crimes for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by
reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and
perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and
norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
society. On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting
Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and
viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words,
Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social,
economic, political and national security implications than Destructive
Arson. However, acts falling under Simple Arson may nevertheless be
converted into Destructive Arson depending on the qualifying
circumstances present. [Emphasis supplied.]
Prescinding from the above clarification vis--vis the description of
the crime as stated in the accusatory portion of the Information, it is

quite evident that accused-appellant was charged with the crime

of Simple Arson for having deliberately set fire upon the two-storey
residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family x x x knowing the
same to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place
and as a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said
building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses,
were razed by fire. [Emphasis supplied]
The facts of the case at bar is somewhat similar to the facts of the
case of People v. Soriano. The accused in the latter case caused the
burning of a particular house.Unfortunately, the blaze spread and gutted
down five (5) neighboring houses. The RTC therein found the accused
guilty of destructive arson under paragraph 1 of Art. 320 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This Court, through
Mr. Justice Bellosillo, however, declared that:
x x x [T]he applicable provision of law should be
Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613, which imposes a penalty
of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for other cases
of arson as the properties burned by accused-appellant
are specifically described as houses, contemplating
inhabited houses or dwellings under the aforesaid law. The
descriptions as alleged in the second Amended Information
particularly refer to the structures as houses rather than as
buildings or edifices. The applicable law should therefore
be Sec. 3, Par. 2, of PD 1613, and not Art. 320, par. 1 of the
Penal Code. In case of ambiguity in construction of penal
laws, it is well-settled that such laws shall be construed
strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the
accused.
The elements of arson under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD
1613 are: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. Incidentally, these elements concur in the case at
bar.
As stated in the body of the Information, accused-appellant was
charged with having intentionally burned the two-storey residential
house of Robert Separa. Said conflagration likewise spread and
destroyed seven (7) adjoining houses. Consequently, if proved, as it was

proved, at the trial, she may be convicted, and sentenced accordingly, of

the crime ofsimple arson. Such is the case notwithstanding the error in
the designation of the offense in the information, the information
remains effective insofar as it states the facts constituting the crime
alleged therein. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor
the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part
thereof allegedly violate, x x x but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited.
There is, thus, a need to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC
as Sec. 5 of PD No. 1613 categorically provides that the penalty to be
imposed for simple arson is:
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by
reason of or on the occasion of arson death results, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
[Emphasis supplied]
Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance alleged in
the Information, the imposable penalty on accused-appellant
is reclusion perpetua.[30]
Now, to the penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum of the indeterminate penalty should range from six (6) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years. Considering that no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance attended the commission of the offense, the penalty should be
imposed in its medium period [eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
years]. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence is prision correccional, which
has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, to be imposed in any
of its periods.

The CA sentence is in accord with law and jurisprudence. We sustain it.

WHEREFORE,
the
is AFFIRMED in full.
SO ORDERED.

petition

is DENIED. The

appealed

judgment

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

DANTE O. TINGA MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

AT T E S TAT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Acting Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice