G.R. No. L-13413. April 22, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO CU, ALIAS MACARIO CU, ALIAS MARIANO CABRALES, ALIAS MACARIO CABRALES, ALIAS MARIANO CABRALES CU, ALIAS MACARIO CAB…
BARREDO, J.:
Appeal by the accused Mariano Cu, alias Macario
Cu, alias Mariano Cabrales, alias Macario
Cabrales, alias Mariano Cabrales
Cu, alias Macario Cabrales
Cu, alias Macario Cu Cabrales,
and Antonio Cabrales, alias Tony, from the judgment
of conviction rendered against them by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, Judge Delfin B.
Flores, presiding, of the crime of arson under Article 321, Paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code, the dispositive part of which
reads:
“Judged by the foregoing rules, the above?narrated
circumstantial evidence has convinced this Court that the herein accused,
Mariano Cu alias Macario Cabrales
and Antonio Cabrales, are guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of consummated arson defined and punished under Par. 1 of
Art. 321 of the Revised Penal Code.
“In the commission of this crime, the Court did not fail to
notice the degree of malice and manifest perversity of the said accused. In their ever-consuming desire to realize
their sinister aim – to build their fortune at somebody’s misfortune –
specially the accused Mariano Cu alias Macario Cabrales who wanted to recover his big loss in the previous
conflagration, both accused had long planned the commission of this crime. Judging by their preparations, as
above-described, it could be well imagined what would have become of the two
old people, Ricardo Menor and his wife, had their
house been engulfed with fire.
“The proximity of the house of Menor
to the insured house of Mariano Cu and the drainage which leads to Menor’s yard which had been splashed with gasoline that
came from the toilet reserved for the accused Cu where bottles of gasoline had
been stored would have made the insured house of the accused Cu more easily
susceptible of catching fire had not the fire in Menor’s
kitchen been extinguished on time. And
with the presence of the 19 sacks of wood shavings and uncovered cans filled
with gasoline in the bodegas of the accused Cu, had this said house caught
fire, it could also be well imagined what would have become of the two families
renting the second story and their children, the youngest of whom was barely
one (1) month old. Their situation is
all the more pitiable if it is considered that the stairs (see Exh. DD), their only easy way of escape, is inside the
second story between rooms or bodegas Nos. 2 and I where the highly inflammable
objects had been stored. The house, too,
is surrounded by a fence of steel mating with barb wire still over it (t.s.n., 1291 – Baria). Since the two accused had purposely sought
nighttime in the commission of this crime, in order to avoid detection, the
darkness of the night would have made the escape of the inhabitants of these
two houses more difficult indeed.
“In the commission of this crime, the Court finds the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and nocturnity
to be present. In accordance with
Paragraph 3 of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty in its maximum
period must be imposed.
“The court, therefore, hereby condemns the herein accused
Mariano Cu alias Macario Cabrales
and Antonio Cabrales to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua with the accessories of the law and to
pay the costs of the proceedings. In
accordance with Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the imprisonment shall be
computed at THIRTY (30) YEARS.
“SO ORDERED.”
The information filed by then Assistant Provincial Fiscal now
Justice Vicente G. Ericta alleged:
“That on or about October 2, 1953, at midnight, in the
municipality of Laoag, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above- mentioned accused, conspiring together and
mutually helping each other, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire to
a residential house owned by Ricardo Menor, located
at Barrio 17, Laoag, Ilocos
Norte, knowing it to be occupied at that time by the spouses Ricardo Menor and Leona Lorenzo, causing to the latter damage in
the amount of P500.00. ‘CONTRARY TO ART.
321, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, WITH THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
OF NOCTURNITY AND PREMEDITATION.’ “
Summarizing the evidence presented at the trial, the court a
quo concluded:
“After analyzing the evidence submitted, the Court finds that
in this case, there is no doubt that there was a fire outside the kitchen of
Ricardo Menor in the night of October 2, 1953.
This is undisputed. The accused
Antonio Cabrales, while testifying in his behalf
during the trial, said that he was awakened by shouts of ‘Fire! Fire!’ (t.s.n., 958
and 1044-Baria, see also his affidavit, Exh. EE)
There is no doubt also that this fire had been caused by the burning of the
jute sacks wet with gasoline which were placed on the table outside and against
the eastern wall of Ricardo Menor’s kitchen. There is no doubt too, that as a consequence
thereof, the eastern wall of Menor’s kitchen had
caught fire resulting in the burning of a part of the said kitchen. (See partly burned boards, Exh. OO; Exhs.
L, L-1 are pictures of the same.)
“The accused Mariano Cu, in company with his attorneys on
February 11, 1954, or more than four (4) months later, went to see the burned
part of Menor’s kitchen and from a distance of 3-1/2
meters (t.s.n. 1225-Baria), the burned parts ‘look
like having been smoked by lamp’ (t.s.n., 1221-Baria)
or ‘seems to have been impressed with hot flat iron (t.s.n.,
1222-Baria). On ocular inspection made
by the Court, it has been recorded thus:
‘East of the makeshift kitchen, said parties, court and necessary
personnel, viewed the wall of the makeshift kitchen and they saw the burned
portion of said makeshift kitchen; below the left corner of the window of the
said makeshift kitchen is burned spot which has been traced on a piece of paper
by placing said piece of paper against the burned spot which piece of paper has
been ordered attached to the records.’ (t.s.n.,
20-21-Baria) The undersigned too, after examining these boards, Exh. OO, whose pictures are Exhs. L and L-1, which are parts of Menor’s
kitchen, almost four (4) years later, found that portions of these boards had
really been burned.
“If these are the only parts of said kitchen which had been
burned in spite of the fact that the jute sacks were wet with gasoline and
joined end to end by means of safety pins, one end of which placed on the table
outside the kitchen and the other end placed in a can of gasoline inside Menor’s dining room, it was because of the very timely
arrival of Menor who poured water over the said
burning sacks, thus extinguishing the fire.
“It must also be considered that the other end of the joined
sacks which was placed in the can of gasoline inside Menor’s
dining room was a bit far from the burning end outside the kitchen, and with the
wall of the kitchen, a space and again the wall of the dining room separating
the two ends (t.s.n., 66-67-Baria. See Exh. D), the
can of gasoline inside Menor’s dining room where the
other end of the joined sacks had been immersed could not have been instantly
affected the fire outside. This is also
true with respect to the cans of gasoline under the table where the stove
was. The table over the said cans of
gasoline may have prevented also the instant effect of gasoline to the fire
outside. It should be considered further
that if the joined sacks which had been wet with gasoline had been placed after
8:00 o’clock when Menor went to sleep (t.s.n., 187-Baria) and set on fire after 12:00 o’clock P.M.
when Cu left for Manila or three (3) or four (4) hours later before they were
set on fire, these sacks, specially those that were on the table outside, may
not have been sufficiently wet with gasoline any more as gasoline easily
evaporates due to its high volatility.
“Whether this is a consummated case of arson, considering the
extent of the burned portion of Menor’s kitchen, in a
case the Supreme Court held:
‘CRIMINAL LAW; ARSON; CONSUMMATED.
The appellant in this case did in fact set
fire to the roof of the house of the offended party, and said house was in fact
partially burned. With this, the crime
of arson was consummated, notwithstanding the fact that the fire was afterwards
extinguished, for, once the fire has been
started, the consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the
extent of the damages caused. (U.S.
vs. Go Foo Soy and Go Jancho,
25 Phil., 187; U.S.
vs. Po Chengo, 25 Phil., 487;
People vs. Hernandez, 54 Phil., 122.
[Italics supplied])
“What must have been the reason or motive of the accused in
perversely burning the house of Ricardo Menor, their
near neighbor? One need not think deeply
or reflect conscientiously for the reason or motive is not hard to find.
“It was proved that the house of the accused Mariano Cu is
only 3 meters away from that of Menor’s house. (t.s.n., 14-Baria)
The relative positions of both houses can be seen in the pictures, Exhs. M & M-2.
In these pictures, Cu’s house is on the right while the eastern eaves of
Menor’s house, in the said pictures, appear partially
on the left. (t.s.n.
113-114-Baria) It has also been proved that this house of Cu’s is assessed at
P4,000.00. (Exh.
Y) Its worth, however, is P20,000.00 according to the estimate of an engineer
of the Philippine American General Insurance Company who examined the said
house. (Exh.
Z-4) But the said house has an insurance of P40,000.00 and its furniture and
other personal belongings were also insured for P5,000.00 or a total of
P45,000.00. (Exhs.
O & Q) The stocks of good worth P30,000.00 which were in the bodegas of the
accused under the said insured house has been insured in the amount of
P25,000.00. (Exh.
P) According to the insurance agent, when the stocks had been insured they were
in boxes and crates and were not opened any more as the Insurance Agent had
faith in the accused Mariano Cu. (t.s.n. 131-132-Baria) But when these boxes were later
opened by Lt. Andres in the presence of Mrs. Cu in the morning following the
fire, they were nothing but burned hardwares and
junks. (t.s.n.
390, 391, 397, 398, 399-Baria) salvaged, according to accused Antonio Cabrales, from the last conflagration in Laoag on December
22, 1952, (t.s.n. 1038-1039-Baria) and
without value (t.s.n. 1041-Baria).
“When the kitchen of Menor was set
afire in the night of October 2, 1953, the house of the said accused, together
with the junks in the bodegas under it had a total fire insurance of P70,000.00
(Exhs. O, P & Q).
It is the temptation and the urge of collecting the amount of the
insurance by accused Mariano Cu and the expectation of the accused Antonio Cabrales to have a share in the same that had made the two
for sometime planned, conspired and cooperated with each other to burn the
house of Menor.
And considering that barely 10 months before this incident or more
particularly on December 22, 1952,
the accused Mariano Cu had been a victim of fire in which he had lost
everything in his uninsured store including their clothings
and family jewelry. (t.s.n.
1125, 1410-Baria and Exh. U) It is reasonable to
conclude that the said temptation must have been great. And considering also that the accused Antonio
Cabrales was only a caretaker, without salary, or,
the pigs and chickens of his co-accused cousin (t.s.n.
1031-Baria) and it was only less than two (2) months before the fire that he
has been given a salary of P30.00 plus bonus if business was good with free
board and lodging (t.s.n. 944-945, 1030-1031-Baria),
the temptation to commit this crime of arson in order to have a share in the
insurance money when it shall have been collected must also be great if not
greater than that of his co-accused cousin, Mariano Cu.
“But in order to collect the P70,000.00 fire insurance, it was
necessary to burn the insured house and the insured junks under it. If the fire would have started from the first
floor of the insured house wherein the insured junks were stored and where the
accused Antonio Cabrales was the only person
sleeping, the conclusion that the burning of the insured house and the insured
junks under it was intentional in order to defraud the insurer, will be
irresistible and as such the insurance will not be collected. And knowing this, in order to avoid any
semblance of suspicion, the two accused had decided that in order to burn the
over-insured house of the accused Mariano Cu together with the insured junks
under it so that the P70,000.00 insurance could be collected easily without
much ado, the fire must come from the house of Ricardo Menor. This is the raison detre
or the very motive of the two accused in planning and cooperating together to
burn the said house of Ricardo Menor, their near
neighbor. This could be done easily
because in that house, being near neighbors, both accused knew that there were
only two old people who slept on that night of October 2, 1953, – Ricardo Menor,
69 years old and his equally old wife, 72 years. (t.s.n., 35-Baria.)
“To this end, so that they can realize their evil purpose, in
the month of August or September, 1953, the accused Mariano Cu paid the old man
Ricardo Menor a visit in his house bringing with him
gifts consisting of two bottles of coca-cola, a can of milk and anisado wine, (t.s.n., 18, 19, 31
– Baria) so keen was his survey and observation that
the accused Mariano Cu even noticed the broken window panes of one of the
windows of the ground floor of Menor’s house and
suggested to Menor to have it changed to cardboard, (t.s.n., 19-Baria) but old Menor
answered him that he preferred it to be that way so that when his son will see
it, he will be the one to change it. (t.s.n., 361-362.)
“Perhaps in that visit, the accused Mariano Cu must have
noticed Menor’s dog.
So that this dog, the only guard of this aged couple, could not be a
hindrance to their sinister design, this dog, must have to be eliminated. It happened that one morning, in the month of
September, 1953, Ricardo Menor noticed that there
were pieces of pork meat scattered around the premises east of his kitchen and
as he was clearing his premises of said pieces of meat, it happened that his
dog ate some of them and as a consequence, his dog died. (t.s.n.,
17-18-Baria.) It was then that old Menor realized
that the small pieces of pork meat which had been scattered had been
poisoned. (t.s.n.,
17-Baria.)
“In order to ascertain that this dog had really died,
Rosalinda Francisco, wife of the accused Mariano Cu, paid also old Menor a visit during the last days of September, 1953,
purposely asking this old man to give her a puppy but old Menor
told her that he could not give her one because his dog had been poisoned. (t.s.n., 33-34-Baria.)
“So that the two houses could easily be burned, the accused
Mariano Cu saw to it that inflammable materials must be stored under his
insured house. For this purpose, he was
seen by the workers of the automobile shop of Fred Fariñas
which is located a block away but along the same road as the insured house of
the said accused bringing to his said house boxes and sacks containing
something which were loaded in the trailer of his jeep. (t.s.n., 687-Baria,
Exhs. HH, HH-1 translation
for the prosecution which were Exhs. 13 and 13-A,
translation for the defense.) Whenever Mariano Cu passed by, said accused had
been the butt of their jokes because accused Mariano Cu, at the time, was
acting as if he were a smuggler. (t.s.n., 688, 706-Baria.) It turned out that these sacks
containing something and the boxes were the 19 sacks full of wood shavings and
cans of gasoline found in his bodega by Lt. Andres and Mrs. Cu in the morning
of October 3, 1953. (Exhs. CC, BB, BB-1
and BB-2.) Some of these sacks and cans were with ‘F. H.’ initials, same as the
initials of the two sacks full of wood shavings and can of gasoline found in
the kitchen of Ricardo Menor that same morning. Parenthetically, the name of the store of the
accused Mariano Cu is ‘Filipino Hardware Store’.
“In order that the junks with no or little value were the only
ones left in his bodegas, the said accused before the date of the fire had
removed from his said bodegas 100 boxes of wine called ‘anisado‘
and placed them in the camarin of his mother-in-law. (t.s.n., 455,
456-457, 458-459-Baria.) In the event that
the accused would have been successful in burning his insured house, the
many empty bottles found in the morning following the fire by Epifanio Cu in the toilet reserved for the accused (t.s.n., 10-11-Ranjo) would have taken the place of those
100 boxes of wine which were removed and placed, as above stated, in the camarin of his mother-in-law.
“Ordinarily, the accused Mariano Cu sent his servants to
collect the rentals of his insured house (t.s.n.,
1112-1113-Baria), but the said accused at 10:00 o’clock in the night of October
2, 1953, although it was rather late to collect rental, went himself to his
insured house not only to collect rents from the two brothers but also to have
the padlocked toilet reserved for him cleaned but it turned out however, that
the said toilet had not been cleaned (t.s.n.,
8-11-Ranjo) because in the following morning, October 3, 1953, the said toilet
was already opened and in it were many bottles filled with gasoline (t.s.n., 10-Ranjo).
Considering that his co-accused cousin, Antonio Cabrales,
was still awake exchanging jokes with Epifanio Cu
till midnight that night, (t.s.n., 32-Ranjo) it is
reasonable to conclude that when Mariano Cu went to his insured house at that time,
his purpose was not only to collect rent but also to put some gasoline in the
toilet and to see whether everything was in readiness preparatory to the
burning of the house of Ricardo Menor.
“The accused Antonio Cabrales, who
was the only person sleeping in the second floor of the insured house must have
readily accepted the proposition of his co-accused cousin, Mariano Cu, to have
a share in the insurance when the same shall have been collected. So, as
previously planned, the accused Cabrales had placed
the inflammable objects in the kitchen of Ricardo Menor
at midnight of October 2, 1953, was still awake and exchanging jokes with Epifanio Cu (t.s.n.,
32-Ranjo). The accused Antonio Cabrales, in order not to awake the old couple who were, by
then, soundly sleeping upstairs, (t.s.n., 35-Baria)
had been very careful because instead of nailing the five (5) 1-gallon cans of
gasoline on the wall of the kitchen he screwed them. (t.s.n., 74,
380-381-Baria, Exhs. AA, AA-1 to AA-4.)
“After assuring himself that everything was ready as his
co-accused cousin Antonio Cabrales must have already placed those inflammable objects
in Menor’s kitchen as above-described, the accused
Mariano Cu, in order to have a perfect alibi, hurriedly left for Manila,
starting from Laoag, according to the said accused at
12:00 o’clock P.M. and arriving in Manila at 11:00 A.M. the following day,
October 3, 1953. (t.s.n.,
1115-1116-Baria.)
“As stated in the first part of this decision, because of the
timely arrival of Menor, the kitchen was not
completely burned, the accused Mariano Cu, was nevertheless, well-posted of
what was happening because, although their intention has not been realized at
all, said accused had received a telegram from his wife, Exh.
LL, telling him that ‘Fred has not given him money, from Laoag
at 8:30 A.M. of October 3, 1953.
Because of the failure to burn the two houses, the accused Mariano Cu
was very desirous to know the situation, so said accused sent a rush telegram
to his wife, Exh. LL-2, Jimy
worst or fair wire immediately’. At this
time, the police authorities and the Philippine Constabulary had already begun
investigating this case and as a matter of fact, they have already investigated
Antonio Cabrales.
Rosalinda Francisco Cu, wife of the accused Mariano Cu, sent a rush
telegram to her accused husband in answer to the rush telegram of the accused,
thus — ‘Jimy condition serious come home
immediately’. Dr. Benedicto
Cu, brother of the accused Mariano Cu, sent also said accused a letter, Exh. 14, telling
him that he was implicated in the crime.
“In refuting the above narrated circumstances, Mariano Cu
denied having visited old man Menor and giving him
gifts during that visit. But considering
the education of this old man, his statement that he has been visited by the
accused Mariano Cu, may have
been said casually and innocently as an answer to questions asked him just as
he had innocently and casually stated that Rosalinda, wife of the accused, had
visited him asking him for a puppy. This
old man not knowing the importance of his statements as he was ignorant of
other facts with which to link them, could not have fabricated the said visits
of Mariano Cu and his wife. That far
from his mind to fabricate, this old man stated that he did not know of anybody
who could have committed the crime, nor does he suspect anybody. (t.s.n., 372-Baria,
Exh. ‘2’) Considering furthermore that a
negative statement of the accused Mariano Cu cannot prevail over the positive
statement of Ricardo Menor, the Court prefer to believe
the statement of Ricardo Menor that sometime in the
month of August or September, 1953, the accused Mariano Cu had visited him and
that Rosalinda Cu went to his house before October 2, 1953, asking for a puppy.
“Again, the accused denied that they had put these 19 sacks of
wood shavings and the cans of gasoline in his bodegas. But the accused Mariano Cu and his co-accused
cousin, Antonio Cabrales, have not denied, because
they cannot deny that in the morning of October 3, 1953, there were splashed of
gasoline in the drainage running from east to west leading to Menor’s yard; that there were 19 sacks of wood shavings
some with ‘F.H.’ initials, a match, some used sticks
of matches, two propaganda papers of the Liberal Party during the election of
1951, several 1-gallon cans with wire handles and boxes of burned hardware,
junks and empty bottles were found by Lt. Andres and Mrs. Cu in the different
bodegas of the accused in the second floor of his insured house. The inflammable articles had not only been
listed in Exh. CC, the original of which was given to
Mrs. Rosalinda Cu that same morning, but their pictures had also been taken in
one of the very bodegas of the
accused, Exhs. BB, BB-1 and BB-2.
“The two accused too have denied having placed in the kitchen
of Ricardo Menor the inflammable objects found there
by Menor, the police and constabulary
authorities. But they have not denied
because they cannot deny, that in the morning of October 3, 1953, in the
kitchen of Menor there were found two sacks full of
wood shavings with ‘F.H.’ initials same as the
initials of some of the sacks full of wood shavings found in the bodega full of
gasoline with the initial ‘F.H.’ same as the initials
of some of the cans full of gasoline found in the bodegas of the accused; that
there were the five (5) 1-gallon cans with wire handles full of gasoline, same
as the several 1-gallon cans with wire handle full of gasoline in the bodega of
Mariano Cu; that there were several used match sticks around the kitchen
premises of Menor and there were also used match
sticks near the small gate of Mariano Cu as well as in this bodegas, and that
there were partly burned election propaganda materials of the Liberal Party in
the election of 1951 tied to a piece of wire found in the kitchen premises of Menor (Exhs. E, E-1 and E-2) same
as the propaganda materials of the Liberal Party for the 1951 election found in
the bodega of the accused Mariano Cu (Item 10, Exh.
CC).
“The accused Mariano Cu also denied having put the 100 boxes
of ‘anisado‘ wine in the camarin
of his mother-in-law before October 2, 1953, but the said accused has not
denied because he cannot deny that in the morning of October 3, 1953, Lt.
Andres found 100 boxes of ‘anisado‘ in the camarin of his mother-in-law.
“Because they cannot deny the existence of these
above-mentioned inflammable objects in the bodegas of the accused as well as in
the kitchen of Menor in the morning of October 3,
1953, the accused Mariano Cu insinuated that when he lost the duplicate of his
keys for his bodegas (t.s.n., 14-Blas) these
inflammable objects may have been placed by his enemies, Angel Pichay and Fred Fariñas (t.s.n., 1257-1258-Baria).
If there were really valuable stocks worth P30,000.00 in his bodegas
under his insured house, which he had insured for P25,000.00, certainly, the
need of keys to shut the doors of his bodegas must, to him, be of paramount
importance. Considering that he is the
owner of the Filipino Hardware Store and considering furthermore that the
accused Mariano Cu is a man who is careful and precautions was not only
satisfied of locking the doors of his bodegas and providing their windows with
iron grills (t.s.n.,
1046-1047-Baria), but also provided them with bars as a precaution (t.s.n., 14-Blas), it is reasonable to believe that the keys, under these circumstances,
must have already been changed before October 2, 1953, to avoid pilferage, that
is, in the event that the duplicate keys had been really lost.
“But the stubborn fact is that Lt. Andres in that morning of October 3, 1953, was not able to open
the accused’s bodegas and because of this, Lt. Andres
had to fetch Mrs. Cu from their store and brought her to their insured house
with the keys. However, according to the
evidence of the defense, it was Cu’s maid, Agustina Batuyong, who gave the keys to Sgt. Bartolome. Whatever is the case, there was the necessity
of the keys with which to open the bodegas and the cabinets. Such being the case, it was impossible for
other people of his alleged enemies for that matter, without forcibly opening or breaking the doors of the
bodegas, to have placed these highly inflammable materials inside his bodegas
before the date of the fire. According
to the accused Antonio Cabrales, when he left at 6:00 o’clock, the room or bodega No. 1 where he
slept and where these highly inflammable materials are found that morning of October 3, 1953. He padlocked the said room (t.s.n., 957-958, 1046-1047-Baria). At that time there were no sacks of wood
shavings or cans of gasoline in the said room or bodega. (t.s.n.,
958-Baria.) But when he was brought to that room or bodega No. 1 by the
Philippine Constabulary soldiers for investigation at 7:00 o’clock that same morning, he then saw these sacks of
wood shavings and cans of gasoline. (t.s.n., 957, 1033-1034-Baria.) If the door had been closed,
as stated by Antonio Cabrales himself, it was
impossible for Cu’s enemies like
Pichay and Fariñas to have
put all these highly inflammable things inside the room or bodega No. 1 without
a key and, assuming that they had the duplicate keys as insinuated by Cu, it was still impossible for them
to have put these inflammable materials in so short a time as barely one (1)
hour without being seen by people in the neighborhood or without attracting the
attention of passersby considering that the insured house of the accused
Mariano Cu is on the crossing of two streets in a thickly populated section of
the town.
“These 19 sacks of wood shavings and cans of gasoline found in
room No. 1 or bodega No. 1 under the insured house of Mariano Cu and wherein
the insured stocks were stored should not have been placed there by all means, if the purpose of the
owner in insuring his house and his goods was honest considering the danger of
these very highly inflammable objects in case of fire. But their being there in the night of the
fire can have no other meaning or purpose than to unmistakably show the evil
motive of the persons responsible in placing them there. The court believes that, after analyzing the
evidence, these inflammable objects had been placed in that bodega or room by
no other persons than the herein accused Mariano Cu and Antonio Cabrales and for no other purpose than to burn the said
insured house together with the insured junks in the bodegas under the said insured house so that the insurance
of P70,000.00 will be collected and later to be divided between the two
accused.
“Because it is admitted, as above-stated, by the defendant
Antonio Cabrales that in the night of October 2,
1953, there was a fire outside the kitchen of Ricardo Menor,
the accused Mariano Cu again insinuated that his two enemies, Angel Pichay and Fred Fariñas must have
been the ones who had set on fire the kitchen of Ricardo Menor
and then laid the blame on him. (t.s.n., 1234-1235-Baria.) According to the accused Cu, he
became an enemy of Angel Pichay before the war and
during their high school days yet (t.s.n.,
1235-Baria) and regarding Fred Fariñas, the accused
became his enemy after the fire, that is, on February 11, 1954, to be exact. (t.s.n.,
1239-Baria.) Although in the house of Ricardo Menor,
in the night of October 2, 1953, nobody else was living except the old and
helpless couple (Menor and his wife) and as such they
could have easily been the victims of any evil or foul intention specially when
their dog, their only guard, had been poisoned, it is absurd and ridiculous to
believe that Fred Fariñas who was not Cu’s enemy before the fire took place will
conspire with Angel Pichay whose enmity with Cu is
already too far back in point of time as to be a fresh cause for a serious
revenge by burning the house of Ricardo Menor who,
according to the accused Cu himself, is their friend, (t.s.n.,
1240-Baria) for no other purpose than to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing their
enemies, Mariano Cu and Antonio Cabrales blamed. Besides, the house of Fred Fariñas is only separated by two or three houses from Menor’s house and the house of Angel Pichay
is also separated by two or three houses from that of Menor’s
house, Exh. 23.
Certainly, without any strong and compelling motive, these two persons
could not have been so foolhardy to burn Menor’s
house knowing that by so doing, they were also endangering their respective
houses. Under the circumstances, the
Court believes that Menor’s kitchen had been set a
fire by no other persons than the two accused herein so that by burning Menor’s house which is only 3 meters from the insured house
of Mariano Cu, his said house together with the insured junks under it would
have also been burned, thus avoiding any suspicion that the burning of the
over-insured house of the accused Mariano Cu together with the insured junks
had not been intentional and therefore the P70,000.00 insurance could easily
be collected without much ado.
“Considered separately, the telegrams, Exhs.
LL, LL-A and LL-B are just ordinary telegrams informing the accused Mariano Cu
of what was happening in his family and home during the day after the
fire. Exh. LL
is a telegram of Mrs. Cu to her accused husband, which says, ‘Not able get
money Fred can’t send any’. This
telegram is nothing but an information given by Mrs. Cu to her accused husband
to the effect that Fred has not given money so she cannot send any. But considering the fact that Fred, according
to the accused, owed him only P70.00 on April 30, 1953, payable on May 30,
1953, (t.s.n., 1116, 1332-Baria) and that there had
been no attempt to collect the said amount except once in 1954 (t.s.n., 1333-Baria) and considering further the fact that
it was not even known whether or not the said Fred had gone to the house of the
accused Mariano Cu in order to pay said accused the said amount on that morning
of October 3, 1953, there was scarcely any need if at all, for Mrs. Cu to have
sent this telegram to her accused husband during the first office hours in the
morning of October 3, 1953. (Exh. LL was sent at 8:33
A.M.) But connecting and considering the wordings of this telegram
in the light of what had happened the night previously, that is, when the
kitchen of Menor has been set on fire and their
house, in spite of the preparation, has not been burned, the above-quoted
telegram is clearly more than meets the eye.
It is a coded information sent by Mrs. Cu to her accused husband, after
knowing that the house of Menor failed to be burned completely
and so with their house and because of this, there was no money as the
insurance could not be collected under the circumstances.
“Although the accused Mariano Cu should not have hurriedly
left for Manila at such an unholy hour at 12:00 o’clock that night of October
2, 1953, (t.s.n., 3-Blas) because his only child, Jimy, then 3 years old was sick and furthermore his cousin
Vicente Cabrales was to pay him P2,000.00 at 7:00
o’clock in the morning following the fire, October 3, 1953, (t.s.n., 1117-1118-Baria) he left just the same for no other
purpose than to attend the birthday celebration of his nephew where wealthy
Chinese businessmen will attend and on that gathering he will have the
opportunity of meeting them and also to buy merchandise for his Filipino
Hardware Store. At 5:30 o’clock that
same afternoon, when the birthday celebration was perhaps in full swing, the
accused Mariano Cu became suddenly nostalgic and solicitous of his only child, Jimy so he sent to Mrs. Cu a rush telegram, Exh. LL-A, thus — ‘Jimy condition
fair or worst reply immediately’. As it
is worded, the telegram is nothing but an inquiry of a solicitous father about
the condition of his only child who was sick when he hurriedly left for Manila. If the sickness of his only son, Jimy, was such as to have prompted him to send to Mrs. Cu
that rush telegram, Exh. LL-A, he should have
postponed, in the first place, his going to Manila if his purpose only was to
meet the Chinese businessmen in the birthday party of his nephew because he
will still have time and opportunity to meet them in the future, if he has not
already met them before, considering that the herein accused is already an old
hand in business. Furthermore, he should
not have hurriedly left for Manila
at 12:00 o’clock that night because
the P2,000.00 which was already a sizeable amount for buying merchandise was to
have been given by his cousin Vicente Cabrales by 7:00
o’clock that following morning and it was only a matter of seven
(7) hours to await. But if the said
telegram, Exh. LL-A, is connected and considered in
the light of the situation loconically described by
the telegram, Exh. LL, because the accused Mariano Cu
has not heard from his wife any more since 8:30
o’clock that morning when the telegram, Exh.
LL, had been sent and it was already 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon, when Exh. LL-A
has been sent, it is safe to conclude that the said telegram was a very urgent
request for further information regarding the burning of the house of Ricardo Menor.
“In answer to the telegram, Exh.
LL-A, Mrs. Cu sent at 7:20 o’clock
that same evening, October 3, 1953,
to her accused husband the following rush telegram as follows: ‘Jimy condition
worst come home’. (Exh.
LL-2.) Thus telegram is logically an answer to the telegram, Exh. LL-1. But
connected and considered in the light of what was taking place at that
time: that the police and constabulary
authorities had already taken steps to investigate the burning of Menor’s kitchen; that his cousin Antonio Cabrales had already been taken by the Philippine
Constabulary in their barracks for investigation and that said Mariano Cu was
likely to be implicated (t.s.n., 887-Baria), a fact
confirmed by the letter of his brother Dr. Cu (Exh.
14) sent to said accused urging him also to come home, it is therefore safe to
conclude that the above-quoted telegram, Exh. LL-2,
is a complete description, although not expressed in so many words, of what was
taking place here in Laoag on that day regarding the
burning of the said kitchen of Menor.
“There can, therefore, be no doubt that the accused Mariano
Cu’s going to Manila hurriedly in the night of the fire after visiting his
insured house was to create an impression that when the kitchen of Menor was set on fire, the said accused was in Manila or
his way to Manila and the aforementioned telegrams sent him were not only
self-serving evidence of his being in Manila but more of a preconceived and
pre-arranged coded information regarding the result of the fire and its
consequences.
“It is very surprising to the Court that as circumstances are
being brought out strongly and unmistakeable pointing
to the guilt of her accused husband, Mrs. Rosalinda Francisco Cu, wife of the
accused Mariano Cu, and herself a school teacher, remained aloft and indifferent
as she did not even bother herself to come to Court to deny the circumstances
in which, it is alleged, she took part.
She should have come to Court and denied her visit to the house of their
near neighbor, Ricardo Menor, asking for a puppy, she
should have denied the positive statement of Lt. Andres to the effect that she
had fetched her (Mrs. Cu) from their Filipino Hardware Store so that she will
bring the keys of the bodegas and cabinets when said Lieutenant could not open
them; she should have denied that she helped Lt. Andres open the doors of the
bodegas and the cabinets; she should have denied the important fact that what
she and Lt. Andres found in that morning of October 3, 1953, in the bodegas of
her accused husband were not burned hardwares and
junks as claimed by Lt. Andres but instead, valuable hardware and goods worth
P30,000.00. She should have denied that
there were such inflammable objects in their bodegas in the morning of October 3, 1953, or denied having
received from Lt. Andres Exh. CC. She should have enlightened the Court
regarding the sending of the telegram whether or not Fred had really gone to
their store that morning without the money or given more light as to the true
condition of their only child when she sent a telegram to her accused husband
in answer to her husband’s telegram, Exh. LL-2,
inquiring about the condition of their only child. The reason why Mrs. Cu did not come to
testify in behalf of her husband is that, according to the accused, he scolded
his wife for playing mahjong (t.s.n., 1261-Baria)
which is of course a flimsy excuse for not coming to Court to testify in behalf
of her husband whose liberty is at stake.
What is true to Mrs. Cu is likewise true to Cu’s mother-in-law. Knowing too, that the liberty of her son?in-law
is at stake, she (mother-in-law) should have come to Court to deny the
existence of the 100 boxes of ‘anisado‘ wine which
Lt. Andres found in her camarin on October 3,
1953. Because these facts have not been
denied and contradicted, they must be deemed conclusive. (Cruz et al. vs. Asociacion
Zanjera Casilian, et al.,
L-1614 and L-1617, Prom. March 30, 1949.)
“The accused Antonio Cabrales denied
the contents of his affidavit, Exh. EE, for the
reason that the same had been extracted from him by force. According to this witness, he had been
maltreated by Lt. Andres in the Philippine Constabulary barracks and as a
consequence, he suffered some minor injuries.
According to Dr. Santos, the accused had suffered contused wounds on the
lower lip, frontal region and in front of the neck, Exh.
15. What surprises the Court is that in
spite of the fact that he had engaged the services of a lawyer in the person of
Congressman Floro Crisologo
(t.s.n., 8-Blas) even at the very beginning of this
case, and although it was known that Lt. Andres had inflicted the said
injuries, there had never been a complaint, criminal or administrative, filed
against Lt. Andres. Besides, the answer
to the questions propounded to Antonio Cabrales in
his affidavit were correctly and naturally given that the Court cannot
attribute that force has been employed on the person of the said accused. Had the Constabulary wanted to, with the use
of force, they could have prepared a very tight affidavit for the said accused
to have signed. For this reason, the
Court believes that the contents of Exh. EE had been
freely given.
“The accused Antonio Cabrales,
although did not deny that he had been investigated by the Chief of Police on
October 5, 1953, however, denies his admission before the said Chief of Police
Vicente Samonte of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, to the effect that the said accused and his
co-accused cousin Mariano Cu had long planned to burn the house of Ricardo Menor so that he will be given a share in the insurance
when it shall have been collected. Said
accused denied further that he reiterated this admission before Lt. Andres.
“If this admission had not been written according to these
officials, it was because it was the wish of the said accused as his attorney
did not like him to sign any paper. Lt.
Andres and Chief of Police Samonte are two
responsible officials without any axe to grind against Antonio Cabrales. They know
of the gravity of the crime of arson and as such they are not so senseless and
conscienceless as to incriminate an innocent person. These two officials could have, had they
wanted to, prepared a written statement to this effect for Antonio Cabrales to sign by force, if necessary, but they did not
out of respect to the wish of the said accused.
This admission taken together with the facts and circumstances brought
out by the prosecution during the trial, the Court has not the least doubt that
the said admission has been made.
“The accused Mariano Cu during the trial likewise denied
having said to Lt. Andres, ‘Never mind already teniente
I will take care of you’. Considering
that this statement was uttered at the very moment when said accused had been
confronted by Lt. Andres about the admission of his co-accused cousin Antonio Cabrales that both had planned the arson to collect the
insurance and conscious of the strong circumstantial evidence already gathered
by the prosecution against him, this accused must have believed that the only
way out, under the tight circumstances, was to bribe Lt. Andres. Besides, the negative statement of this
accused cannot prevail over the positive statement of Lt. Andres who has no axe
to grind against Mariano Cu. For this
reason the Court believes that the said accused had said the above-quoted
statement in order to save himself.
“It is strongly argued by counsel of Mariano Cu that the
admission of Antonio Cabrales must affect him alone
and not his client, the accused Mariano Cu.
But in this case, there is a very strong evidence of conspiracy apart
from the said admission of the accused Antonio Cabrales. The over insurance of Cu’s house and the
insurance of the junks in boxes in his bodegas under his insured house; his
visit to the house of Menor; the poisoning of Menor’s dog so that there was no hindrance in the burning
of Menor’s house.
In order to ascertain the death of the dog, Mrs. Cu visited Menor asking for a puppy of the dead dog; the bringing of
the inflammable objects to his bodega; that same objects had been found in the
kitchen of Menor during the fire, are more than
enough evidence to show conspiracy and considering that Antonio Cabrales will have a share in the insurance, it is safe to
conclude that these two accused had conspired to commit the crime imputed
against them. (People vs. Faltado, 46 O.G., 6079.)
“Considering the evidence submitted, the following facts are
either undisputed because they are admitted by the accused themselves or proved
beyond the cavil of doubt during the trial of this case:
“1. It is admitted by the accused that during the
conflagration here in Laoag, on December 22, 1952,
the former store of Mariano Cu had been completely burned including the
clothing and the jewelry of the family.
(t.s.n., 1125-Baria.)
“2. It is an admitted fact that the accused
Mariano Cu knowing the advantages of insurance at this time, insured his
Filipino Hardware Store worth P50,000.00 for only P5,000.00, Exh. U and Exh. 26), whereas the
stocks in the bodegas under his insured house worth P30,000.00 has been insured
for P25,000.00. (Exhs.
O, P and Q.) These stocks or goods were in boxes and crates which have not been
opened because the insurance agent had faith in the accused Mariano Cu. (t.s.n.,
131-132-Baria.) But when these boxes and crates were opened by Lt. Andres and
Mrs. Cu their contents were worthless junks.
“3. The fact that several months before October 2,
1953, or more particularly in July, 1953, the accused Mariano Cu wanted to
insure his house with the Capitol Insurance Company for P75,000.00 but the same
had been rejected because the house is worth P20,000.00 only, according to the
investigation of the company’s engineer, Exhs. Z and
Z-4.
“4. The fact that after the rejection of the
above-mentioned insurance he was successful in insuring not only his house, its
furniture and fixtures but also the stocks in his bodegas under this said house
for P70,000.00, Exhs. O, P and Q.
“5. The
fact that he visited the house of Menor bringing with
him gifts but in reality went to survey the said house because he even noticed
the broken glass of the window pane and even suggested that the same be changed
to cardboard.
“6. That
one morning in the month of September, 1953, there were poisoned meat around
the premises of Menor’s kitchen which Menor’s dog had eaten some of it and as a consequence, the
said dog died. Thus getting rid of the
only guard of the old couple.
“7. The fact that the poisoning of Menor’s dog had been followed by a visit of Mrs. Cu to Menor’s house asking for a puppy but Menor
told Mrs. Cu that his only dog had been poisoned, thus ascertaining that the
dog had really died.
“8. The fact that several days before October 2, 1953, the accused Mariano
Cu had been seen bringing to his bodegas boxes and sacks which were loaded in
his trailer. These things were later
found to be sacks of wood shavings and gasoline.
“9. The fact that before October 2, 1953, the accused Mariano Cu had
transferred 100 boxes of wine to the camarin of
mother-in-law.
“10. His going to his insured house at the late
hour of 10:00 o’clock in the evening
of October 2, 1953,
allegedly to collect rent and to have his toilet cleaned was to see whether
everything was in readiness preparatory to the burning of the house of Ricardo Menor.
“11. The fact that the inflammable objects found
in Cu’s bodegas by Lt. Andres were the same as those inflammable objects found
in Menor’s kitchen.
“12. The fact that there were splashes of gasoline
in the drainage north of Cu’s house running from east to west going to the
kitchen premises of Menor.
“13. The
fact that the only person sleeping under
the insured house of the accused Mariano Cu is his co-accused cousin, Antonio Cabrales.
“14. The defendant Mariano Cu’s hurriedly going to
Manila at 12:00 o’clock on the night of the fire on October 2, 1953, without first
waiting for the money to be paid him in the following morning and in spite of
the fact that his only child was sick, for no other purpose than to attend the
birthday celebration of his nephew and to buy merchandise, was to have an
alibi.
“15. The telegram Mrs. Cu sent to her accused
husband and the telegrams sent by the accused Mariano Cu to his wife are coded
information about the result of the fire.
“16. The admission of the accused Antonio Cabrales that the said accused and his co-accused cousin,
Mariano Cu, had planned this
crime so that when the insurance of the house and the stocks amounting to P70,000.00 shall have been collected he
will be given a share and finally,
“17. The attempt to bribe Lt. Andres when
confronted by the admission of his co-accused cousin, Antonio Cabrales, the accused Mariano Cu said, ‘Never mind already teniente I will take care of you.’
“During the trial of this case and while accused Mariano Cu
was on cross examination, there was a significant question of the prosecution
with an equally significant answers of said accused which contain in a nutshell
the motive of the accused in burning the house of Ricardo Menor. Because it is surprising that a businessmen
like the accused Mariano Cu had insured his Filipino Hardware Store worth P50,000.00 located in the business
section of the town where the risk of fire is great for only P5,000.00, Exh. 26, where as the stocks in his bodegas located in a
place where the risk of fire is not great worth P30,000.00 has been insured for P25,000.00, Fiscal Vicente G. Ericta had asked the following questions to the
accused Cu:
“Q. On October 2, 1953, can you estimate and
tell the Honorable Court the value of your stocks stored in your Filipino
Hardware?
“A. If I am not
mistaken, Sir, my estimate is more than P50,000.00.
“Q. And on the same
date, October 2, 1953, what
was the value of all your stocks you had in your three bodegas in your house at
the corner of Villanueva and M. H. del Pilar Streets?
“A. More than
P30,000.00.
“Q. And do I understand
that the only insurance of your P50,000.00 stock in the hardware was P5,000.00
as per Exhibit ’26’?
“A. Yes, sir,
because I had no intention to burn; it is only with the help of God and
furthermore, the premium is too high. (t.s.n., 1265-1266-Baria) Underscoring supplied.
“Because ‘crime will out’, the answer of the accused, whether
it was wittingly or unwittingly given or whether or not it was only a slip of
his tongue, has betrayed himself. The
inevitable inference from the foregoing answers is that his purpose in insuring
the junks valued P30,000.00 in his bodegas under his insured house for
P25,000.00 was to burn them in order to collect the insurance. It cannot be said that the answers are
isolated statements of the accused because it is one of the most important
points of this case in which all the evidence of the prosecution had been
centered proving this point and the defense of the accused had been marshalled disproving the same. And since the accused had already made
manifest his motive as above-stated, there is no reason why this Court will not
believe the said accused because ‘No man would declare anything against
himself, unless such declaration were true’.
(U.S.
vs. Ching Po, 23 Phil., 578)
“All these formidable array of circumstances taken together
had more than convinced the Court that the two accused, Mariano Cu and Antonio Cabrales, had planned, conspired and cooperated together to
burn the house of Ricardo Menor so as to avoid the
suspicion that the burning of Cu’s insured house together with the insured
junks has been intentional thus making the collection of the insurance of
P70,000.00 easily.”
In the two briefs filed by the appellants within the space of one
week,[1]
they have assigned a total of seventeen (17) alleged errors of the trial court,
most of which are overlapping, as follows:
1. In the brief signed by
Atty. Antonio Raquiza:
“I
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING AS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THE
TESTIMONY OF MENOR ON
THE PROCEDURE THE ACCUSED ALLEGEDLY FOLLOWED IN BURNING HIS (MENOR’S) HOUSE.
“II
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT BY ANYONE INCLUDING THE ACCUSED TO
BURN THE HOUSE OF RICARDO MENOR.
“III
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS ACTUAL FIRE INCENDIARY IN NATURE AT MIDNIGHT OF OCTOBER 2, 1953, FOR IN TRUTH THERE WAS NONE.
“IV
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT CONCLUDING THAT, GRANTING WITHOUT CONCEDING THAT THERE WAS FIRE,
NO PORTION OF MENOR’S KITCHEN WAS EVER BURNED.
“V
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN ITS FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE HIGHLY INFLAMMABLE QUALITY OF GASOLINE,
AND IN NOT HOLDING THAT, CONSIDERING THE VOLUME OF THE FIRE DESCRIBED BY MENOR AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE STOCK OF GASOLINE, AN
EXPLOSION COMPARABLE WITH THOSE AT CAPE CANAVERAL WOULD
HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
“VI
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS ONLY MARIANO CU
AND/OR HIS CO-ACCUSED CABRALES WHO HAD EXCLUSIVE
ACCESS TO THE BODEGAS AND TOILET OF THE HOUSE AND THAT NOBODY ELSE BUT THEY
COULD HAVE PLACED THE INFLAMMABLE MATERIALS IN THEIR HOUSE ON THE NIGHT OF
OCTOBER 2, 1953.
“VII
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN ACCEPTING AS TRUE THE RESPECTIVE TESTIMONIES OF LT. ANDRES AND RICARDO
MENOR WHICH, ASIDE FROM BEING IMPROBABLE, ARE
SELF-SERVING AND WITHOUT BENEFIT OF CORROBORATION.
“VIII
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT REALIZING THE CONSPICUOUS FACT THAT SAMONTE
BELIEVED IN THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED, HENCE HIS UTTER LACK OF CONCERN IN
THE SUCCESS OF THE PROSECUTION SINCE THE INVESTIGATION UP TO THE TRIAL.
“IX
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT FINDING ANGEL PICHAY AND FRED FARIÑAS RESPONSIBLE IN CONCOCTING THE FIRE DRAMA DESIGNED
AS A FRAME UP AGAINST THE DEFENDANT CU.
“X
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT, GRANTING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT CABRALES IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, THERE IS NO COMPETENT
EVIDENCE AGAINST MARIANO CU.
“XI
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONY OF MARIANO CU.
“XII
“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED
TO ESTABLISH EVEN A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED.”
2. In the brief signed by
Atty. Arturo A. Romero:
“I
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ALLEGED ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT
ANTONIO CABRALES MADE BEFORE THE CHIEF OF POLICE (EXH. ‘FF’) AND LT. JUAN ADRES
(PC) AND HIS ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION (EXIT. ‘EE’) AND IN CONSIDERING
THE SAME AGAINST DEFENDANT MARIANO CU.
“II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING AND GIVING SO MUCH
PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND PERJURED TESTIMONIES OF LT. JUAN ANDRES,
RICARDO MENOR, JUSTO TEJADA AND JESUS ANGELES.
“III
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF
CONSPIRACY WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: THE OVER-INSURANCE OF CU’S HOUSE AND THE INSURANCE OF JUNKS IN BOXES IN HIS
BODEGAS UNDER HIS HOUSE; HIS VISIT TO THE HOUSE OF MENOR
WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SURVEYING IT; POISONING OF MENOR’S
DOG; MRS. CU’S VISIT TO MENOR FOR A PUPPY AND THE
BRINGING OF INFLAMMABLE OBJECTS TO HIS BODEGA.
“IV
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING AND TAKING AS A PROVEN
FACT THAT THE INFLAMMABLE OBJECTS FOUND IN CU’S BODEGA WERE THE SAME AS THOSE
INFLAMMABLE OBJECTS FOUND IN MENOR’S KITCHEN.
“V
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING AND/OR TAKING AS A PROVEN
FACT THAT THE ‘TELEGRAMS MRS. CU SENT TO HER ACCUSED HUSBAND AND THE TELEGRAMS
SENT BY THE ACCUSED MARIANO CU TO HIS WIFE ARE CODED INFORMATION ABOUT THE
RESULT OF THE FIRE.’
“VI
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING AS A PROVEN FACT THAT
BEFORE OCTOBER 2, 1953,
DEFENDANT CU ‘HAD TRANSFERRED 100 BOXES OF WINES TO THE CAMARIN
OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW.’
“VII
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS WHERE THE
PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE ‘CORPUS DELICTI.’
“
We have carefully read
both briefs and minutely scrutinized and weighed the testimonies on record of
all the witnesses[2] as well as the exhibits of prosecution and
defense[3]
in the light of these assigned errors, and
it is Our considered conclusion that, except as to some unessential details,
the trial court’s findings are
basically correct and that, on the whole, the evidence of the State proves the
guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Read together, the errors assigned by appellants constitute an
attack on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The unbending rule of jurisprudence is that
matters of credibility are adduced basically to the trial judge who is always
in a better position than the appellate court to appreciate the weight and
evidentiary value of the testimonies of witnesses who have personally appeared
before them. Moreover, in this
particular case, We have not found any of the points raised in appellants’
brief sufficiently persuasive to cause Us to reverse the corresponding
conclusions of His Honor. The contention
of appellants to the effect that the testimonies of Lt. Andres and Ricardo Menor are highly improbable and incredible and that
actually no fire of incendiary character had occurred is obviously untenable in
the face of the confession of appellant Antonio Cabrales and the result of the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court.
Indeed, this is one instance where the commendable exhaustive
and comprehensive analyses of the evidence and the relevant circumstances
respectively proved by every bit thereof by the trial court, as demonstrated in
the portions of its decision aforequoted, may well be
adopted in toto by this Court, and We do
so. And We hold in consequence that in
the main the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. The issues raised and the quality and weight
of the evidence on record do not require further elucidation, as they do not
call for any new doctrinal ruling.
We note, however, that the court a quo appreciated evident
premeditation as an aggravating circumstance.
This is not correct. As “in
robbery, theft, estafa and analogous offenses where
the accused would execute the preconceived act only after having thought out
the method by which he intends to accomplish it”, (The Revised Penal Code
by Aquino, Vol. I, Book I, pp. 340-341, 1976 ed.) in
arson, evident premeditation is inherent.
ACCORDINGLY, with the sole modification that the holding
of His Honor to the effect that the subject offense was committed with the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be eliminated, which
elimination will not, however, affect the correctness of the penalty imposed by
the trial judge, the herein appealed decision is affirmed, with costs against
appellants.
Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino,
and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.
[1]
Considering the gravity of the offense herein involved and the penalty imposed
upon appellants by the trial judge, as an act of liberality, the Court opts to
overlook this rather odd practice, there being no objection thereto on the part
of the Solicitor General, who, apparently finding no better alternative did not
take the trouble of discussing the appellants’ assignments of errors
specifically and separately, thereby making the study of the case by the Court
more difficult and time consuming.
[2]
These are found in 1,545 pages of
transcript of stenographic notes.
[3]
There are 45 main exhibits (excluding subsidiaries) of the government, Exhibits
A to RR and XX and almost 300 exhibits of the accused, Exhibits 1 to 43-A with
subsidiary markings.