THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE DITTO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. FELIPE DITTO AND FORTUNATO LAUBISTO, APPELLANTS.

VILLAMOR, J.:

The Court of First Instance of Samar sentenced the appellants to be imprisoned for ten years and one day of presidio mayor,
with the accessories prescribed by law, to indemnify Casimiro Abria
jointly and severally in the sum of P10, and to- pay the costs.

The defendants are charged with the crime of arson committed,
according to the complaint, as follows: “That on or about midnight of
the 4th of May, 1923, in the sitio of Capipian, barrio of Lope de Vega,
municipality of Catarman, Province of Samar, Philippine Islands, and
within the jurisdiction of this court, the above named defendants with
premeditation and confederating together, provided themselves with
dynamite or other explosive substance, and did willfully, unlawfully and
criminally place it and cause the same to explode on the door of the
house inhabited by Casimiro Abria and his family, which dynamite or
explosive substance exploded and burnt the ceiling of said house; as a
result of which a part of said house was destroyed, the damage caused
not exceeding 6,250 pesetas.

“Contrary to law.”

The appellants pray for the reversal of the judgment appealed from,
while the Attorney-General prays for the modification thereof in the
sense that the penalty of from four months and twenty-one days to six
months of arresto mayor be imposed upon the defendants, under
the provision of article 557, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code. After a
careful study of the record, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that
the guilt of the defendants does not appear duly proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, as is required for the imposition of the penalty fixed
by the law.

There is in the record no direct evidence of the commission of the
crime by the defendants. None of the witnesses has seen the dynamite
which, it is said, they caused to explode in the house of the offended
Casimiro Abria. Indeed the Attorney-General says in his brief: “It is
true that none of the witnesses for the prosecution has seen the
defendants Felipe Dino and Fortunato Lauristo on the night of May 4,
1923, at the act of firing the dynamite that set fire to the ceiling of
the house of Casimiro Abria and unnailed several boards from its wall,
but the circumstances of record in this case are so clear and conclusive
that no other conclusion is possible than that the herein appellants
Felipe Dino and Fortunato Lauristo were the authors of the explosion
that caused a part of the ceiling of the house of Casimiro Abria to
burn.”

What are these circumstances? They are made to consist in the facts testified to by Andres Borca and Enrique Horogon.

The witness Andres Borca says that about the month of February, 1923,
the accused Felipe Dino proposed to him to cause a dynamite to explode
in the house of Casimiro Abria, telling him, “Andres there is a dynamite
here; fire it in the house of Casimiro Abria,” which the witness
refused to do, because he did not know how to fire a dynamite. This
seems to indicate the guilt of the accused Felipe Dino; but if it is
considered that the testimony of the witness Borca is not corroborated
in any manner and is denied by the accused Felipe Dino, and that Borca
has not seen any dynamite or other explosive substance in Felipe’s
possession, it cannot be said in reason that his testimony constitutes a
strong and conclusive evidence of the guilt of the accused Felipe Dino.

The witness Enrique Horogon says that he was invited by Gabriel Dino
on the night of the 4th of May, 1923, to go out fishing on a boat. This
witness says, further, that upon their arrival at the place known as
Iraya of the barrio of Lope de Vega his companions left them on the
boat; that then he heard an explosion and a little later the accused
came back in a hurry to the boat and in their return Felipe Dino warned
him not to reveal to anybody that he (Felipe Dino) had ordered the
accused Lauristo to fire a dynamite in the house of Casimiro Abria.

But is it true that Horogon was invited by Gabriel Dino on the night
in question to go out on a boat with the defendants up to the place
known as Iraya? The record does not disclose any confirmation of the
testimony of Horogon; on the contrary it is denied by the Dino
defendants and the circumstances of the voyage on the boat and of the
warning that Horogon puts in the mouth of Felipe make it completely
incredible. If after all, Horogon had no part to perform in connection
with the supposed igniting of the dynamite, what necessity did the
accused have to take him on the boat? If Horogon, at any rate, did not
know where the defendants went after they had left him on the boat, nor
did he see Lauristo fire the dynamite in the house of Abria, what
necessity did Felipe have to caution him not to tell anything about what
they (the defendants) had done? By instinct the criminal avoids the
presence of witnesses who may denounce the commission of the crime; and
the case now related by the witness Horogon is so rare that without a
strong corroboration, as is the case here, we cannot believe it. And
upon this ground, the case must be dismissed as to the defendant Gabriel
Dino.

The fact itself of the explosion of the dynamite related by the
offended Abria is not free from doubt. According to this witness, at
about midnight of May 4, 1923, while he was sleeping in company with
eight persons in his house situated in the sitio of Capipian, barrio of
Lope de Vega, municipality of Catarman, Province of Samar, he was
awakened by a strong explosion, which he supposed had burst out in his
house; he immediately stood up, and went to the place where he believed
the explosion had taken place, and found a part of the wall that was
contiguous to the door destroyed, and the ceiling of thethouse burning;
he called his servant and both of them succeeded in putting out the
fire. As a result of said explosion, the hemp fiber baled and deposited
behind the main door of the house was scattered and a part of the
ceiling, which was of anahaw, burnt, thus presenting a hole
which was one foot in diameter, four boards having been unnailed and a
hole made on the wooden floor. On the next day he reported the matter to
the municipal president of Catarman who repaired to the place of the
event and saw that the damage caused by the explosion would amount to
P10.

According to the testimnoy of the witness Abria the explosion seems
to have taken place on the exterior part of his house near the main
door, destroying the wall contiguous to the door through which it
entered scattering the hemp fiber which was baled and deposited behind
said door, and unnailing four boards of the wall; but such a hypothesis
cannot be reconciled with the fact of an opening one foot in diameter
having been made on the wooden floor of the house, and another of equal
size on the ceiling of anahaw, unless it is granted that the explosion
was so strong that a part of the explosive was thrown against the
unnailed boards, another part against the floor, making an opening
thereon, and still another against the ceiling. But then it cannot be
explained how the eight persons who were sleeping in the same room,
which contained an area of only about 12 square brazas and formed one
single compartment, did not suffer the slightest injury.

Without the necessity of expounding other hypotheses which may be
drawn from the testimony of Abria, and taking into account that the same
witnesses, Borca and Horogon, have not seen any dynamite in possession
of the defendants, or in the house of Felipe Dino, or in the boat on the
night in question, we conclude that if the circumstances stated by said
witnesses indicate anything, they are not so convincing or conclusive
as to establish the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to Rule 52 of the Provisional Law for the Application of
the Provisions of the Penal Code, in order that a conviction may be
sustained upon circumstantial evidence alone, it is necessary, first,
that the circumstances be more than one; second, that the facts upon
which they are based be proven; and third, that, taken together, they
convince the mind in such a manner as not to leave any room for
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in the natural and
ordinary course of things. And this is substantially the same rule
established by the jurisprudence of this court. (U. S. vs. Perez, 2 Phil., 171; U. S. vs. Douglass, 2 Phil., 461; U. S. vs. Reyes, 3 Phil., 3; U. S. vs. Villos, 6 Phil., 510.)

For all of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from must be
reversed, and the appellants Felipe Dino and Fortunato Lauristo be, as
they are hereby, acquitted with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.