THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LAO WAN SING ALIAS CO TIOK ALIAS WASING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Lao Wan Sing versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Lao Wan Sing, also known as Co Tiok and as Wasing, a store owner in Kalibo, Aklan, who was convicted of arson for setting fire to his own kitchen during the confusion of a larger town fire. The action began as a criminal prosecution in the Court of First Instance of Aklan and reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the conviction. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of the rule that the Supreme Court will not disturb a trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, and it shows how the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion occasioned by another fire is established by the peculiar timing of a second blaze.

Procedural History

The appellant was charged with arson in the Court of First Instance of Aklan. After trial, that court convicted him, found the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion occasioned by another fire, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the several private complainants in specified amounts, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The appellant elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal. The Court noted at the outset that the appeal presented no issues of law, but merely involved the credibility of the various witnesses, both for the prosecution and for the defense.

Facts

Rizal Street is the business section of Kalibo, Aklan. It runs from north to south and opens on the north into 19 Martirez Street, along whose northern side lies the Kalibo Plaza. At around 5:40 in the afternoon of June 17, 1956, a fire broke out at Juana's Store on the western side of Rizal Street. It spread northward, engulfing the Novelty Store, then Masing's Store, and finally the Municipal Building of Kalibo, and it also spread two doors south until it reached the Ang Tong Suy Store, where it stopped.

When that first fire was already dying and the roof of the municipal building had already collapsed, black smoke was seen coming from the direction of the kitchen of the New Plaza Bazar, owned by the appellant and located on the eastern side of Rizal Street, across the municipal building. That kitchen stood on the ground floor of the Abanilla Building, which was also partly occupied by the Kalibo Rural Bank. This second fire spread eastward and southward, jumped to the houses on the western side of Rizal Street, and burned practically the entire business section of Kalibo.

The prosecution relied on four witnesses. Jose Narce, a houseboy, testified that while helping to evacuate the Laserna Drugstore he saw the appellant pick up a lighted kerosene lamp from the sink of the compounding room, carry it into his own store, remove its glass funnel, raise its wick to enlarge the flame, and later pour kerosene from that lamp and set fire to his kitchen. Guillermo Vidal testified that as he approached the appellant's kitchen he saw the appellant bending over a pile of firewood, from which flame and smoke suddenly rose. Coronacion Peñaflor, a cook in an adjacent store, heard a voice she recognized as the appellant's from his kitchen and then saw fire and smoke there. Dr. Iluminado Motus confirmed that a lighted kerosene lamp had been on the sink of the drugstore and had disappeared. The appellant's defense was that he was elsewhere evacuating his goods with the help of several witnesses, and that the second fire came from the Abanilla Building or from flares from Masing's Store.

Issues

• Whether or not the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense should be sustained on appeal.
• Whether or not the second fire was of incendiary character and was set by the appellant.
• Whether or not the appellant was motivated by pecuniary gain.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion occasioned by another fire attended the commission of the crime.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 7 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

That the crime be committed in the midst of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

This is the aggravating circumstance the trial court and the Supreme Court applied, because the appellant set his kitchen on fire while the first conflagration was still raging and the people were in confusion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that where the issue involves credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court, because it is in a better position to decide the question, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The exception is where the trial court has overlooked facts of substance and value which, if considered, would affect the result. Finding no such oversight, the Court affirmed.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the trial court that the fire on the eastern side of Rizal Street was of incendiary character. The second fire could not have come from the first, because the wind was blowing westward that afternoon, and because the front of the buildings across the street would have been affected first, not the appellant's kitchen some thirty-five meters away and roofed with galvanized iron. The theory that flares from Masing's Store caused the blaze was rejected: only one witness testified to it, Masing's Store had burned earlier, and the Abanilla fire broke out only when that fire was already dying. The Court found the testimonies of Narce and Vidal credible, noting their candor, and rejected the claim that gratitude to their employers made them unreliable.

On the third issue, the Court found that the appellant had a motive of pecuniary gain. His store was insured for twenty thousand pesos but held goods worth about forty-seven thousand to forty-eight thousand pesos, part of which had been saved and part lost to looting during the fire. It was not improbable that he set fire to his kitchen to recover losses not covered by his insurance policy.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion occasioned by another fire was properly appreciated, since the second fire was deliberately set while the first conflagration still raged and the town was in confusion.

Doctrine

First, findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally binding on appellate courts, because the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and observed their deportment; the exception is where facts of substance and value have been overlooked that would affect the result. Second, arson may be established by circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses who saw the accused prepare and ignite the fire, even if they reported the matter only later, where their delay is satisfactorily explained. Third, motive of pecuniary gain, such as recovering uninsured losses through insurance, may be considered in establishing the commission of arson. Fourth, the aggravating circumstance under paragraph 7 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is present when the crime is committed in the midst of a conflagration, as when the accused sets a second fire while the first is still raging and the people are in confusion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, sentencing the appellant to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the private complainants in the amounts stated, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect on appeal, absent overlooked facts of substance. Examiners use this case to test the rule on credibility of witnesses and the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of the confusion occasioned by another fire.