THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. PEDRO DAAMO, EULALIO CESAR, MARIANO CESAR AND HERMENEGILDO CESAR, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The defendants, Pedro Daamo, Eulalio Cesar, Mariano Cesar, and
Hermenegildo Cesar each having been sentenced to eight years and one
day of presidio mayor, to jointly and severally indemnify the
Roman Catholic Church of Gingoog in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the
costs of the cause for the crime of arson, appealed to this court.

It is alleged in the complaint that on or about the 1st day of May,
1913, in the municipality of Gingoog, Province of Misamis, the
appellants willfully, maliciously, and feloniously, at nighttime burned
and destroyed a Roman Catholic Church, together with all the images and
ornaments which were contained therein, in the barrio of Daan Lungsod,
of the value of P1,500.

On May 7, 1913, the municipal president of Gingoog filed a complaint
in the justice of the peace court against the appellants and one Julian
Daamo, charging them with this crime of arson. After the preliminary
investigation the justice of the peace, on May 15, 1913, held all the
therein defendants for trial before the Court of First Instance. On
September 13, 1913, the case was continued by order of the judge of the
Court of First Instance until the next term of court. On December 12,
1914, the provincial fiscal filed a motion asking that the case be
provisionally dismissed without prejudice to the filing of another
complaint for the same crime in case he should be able to obtain better
testimony. In this motion the fiscal stated: “The undersigned, having
carefully examined the witnesses for the prosecution, has been unable
to find sufficient evidence upon which to base a criminal complaint
against these defendants.” On April 22, 1916, the provincial fiscal
filed the complaint upon which the appellants were tried. Julian Daamo
being too sick to be present, the trial of the case proceeded against
the others, who were found guilty and sentenced, as above indicated.
The only question raised is one of fact. The witnesses for both the
prosecution and the defense testified substantially as follows:

“Claudio Guibuni: When we were working on the church, Eulalio Cesar
came and told us to discontinue the work. As we continued with the
work, he then said: ‘If you keep on working on this church, this church
will not be of any use to you.’ We continued working until the church
was finished. A few months thereafter when the nipa roof and walls were
dry, the church was burned. When they burned the church I was on the
sea, fishing. At about midnight I landed and started for my house.
While I was going up the steps of my house, I happened to look around
and saw a sheet of flame issue from the church. Then I went to the
church and upon arriving at the corner of the street near the main door
of the church, I looked to find out what that sheet of flame was that I
saw. Not long thereafter I saw a person strike a match and set fire to
the wall of the church. After setting fire to the wall of the church,
the flame spread and when the fire was burning I recognized each of the
defendants by the light. After recognizing them, I ran toward the house
of the lieutenant of the barrio and upon arriving there I pushed the
door and called out that something had happened. The lieutenant was
somewhat frightened and asked what was the matter. I replied that our
church had been burned. After hearing that the lieutenant got up and we
returned to the church together and on arriving near the church we
noticed that the defendants were leaving, going in the direction of the
road near the river. The church belonged to the Roman Catholics. I do
not know the religion of the defendants because I did not find out. The
church, which was burned on the 1st day of May, 1913, was composed of
galvanized-iron, nipa, bamboo, and wood and had in its images,
curtains, and other things. The church had been dedicated and mass had
been said in it before it was burned. It was constructed by the people
of the barrio. The church was burned about five or six months after it
was completed. I was in charge of the church as fiscal. The first time
I went to the church on that night it was not yet burning. I then saw
Julian Daamo strike a match and set fire to the wall. The other four
defendants were with Julian at that time, but I did not see them do
anything. When the lieutenant and myself arrived, the defendants were
then walking away. When I returned from fishing and while walking up
the steps of my house, I saw a streak of fire. The church was not then
burning. The church was about 40 yards from my house and about 90 or
100 yards from the lieutenant’s house. I did not know whether the
defendants ever had any trouble with the Roman Catholic priest of
Gingoog or not.”

“Adolfo Tigun: On Thursday, the 1st day of May, 1913, at about 1
o’clock at night, Claudio Guibuni pushed upon the door of my house and
said, ‘Lieutenant, our church has been burned.’ I asked him who set fire
to the church and he said the defendants (naming them). After hearing
that, I immediately ran down from the house toward the church and when
I got there I examined the surroundings of the church, looked in toward
the vestry of the church and I found Julian Daamo and the other
defendants. They came from the vestry of the church. After I recognized
their voices, they left and ran toward the river. When Claudio and
myself arrived at the church, the fire had gained headway up to the top
of the roof. When we got there the defendants had already set fire to
the church and were standing near it. Julian and Pedro Daamo are
brothers. The three Cesars are brothers. Eulalio Cesar is married to
Pedro Daamo’s sister. I do not know whether the Roman Catholic priest
ever had any trouble with the defendants or not. The church was worth
P1,500, more or less, not including the images.”

“Francisco Sampson (a Chinaman): I know all five of the defendants
were talking about burning the church. When they were talking about
burning the church, they were then upstairs in the house belonging to
the mother-in-law of one of the Cesars. I had a store at that time in
the lower part of the same house. There was a small lamp burning
upstairs when I heard them say they were going to burn the church that
week. The first time they talked about burning the church, they did not
burn it because the nipa was not dry; it was green. They said, ‘In one
month, during holy week, the nipa and the timber will have dried and
then we will burn it.’ I heard this conversation at nighttime more than
one week before the church was burned. Half of the ceiling of the lower
part of the house was sawale and the other half had no sawale. My store
was then closed, but I was making some entries in my book. The
agreement made by them was that each one of them should carry a beer
bottle full of oil, with a piece of rag, and matches. I did not testify
in the justice of the peace court in 1913 because I was not called. I
met some Constabulary soldiers in Bulua and I referred the matter to
them on that occasion. That was last year—1915. I did not say anything
about it before because I was afraid I would be killed. The church was
burned about one month after I moved my store from the lower-story of
the house where I heard the defendants talking about burning the
church. Yes, upon meeting the Constabulary, I immediately informed them
of the conversation among the defendants which I heard in 1913.”

“Eulalio Cesar (one of the defendants) : I know the other defendants
because two of them are my brothers and Pedro Daamo is my
brother-in-law. On the 1st day of May, 1913, I was at work on my farm.
I know the Chinaman, Francisco Sampson. I had trouble with him. In the
barrio of Da-an Lungsod my father-in-law took a piece of land and I
planted coconuts on that land, and this Chinaman claimed that land
belonged to him, and that is why he got mad at me. This was in the
month of May, 1915. I knew of the burning of the church, but I was then
living on my land, which is about one hour’s walk from the church.”

“Hermenegildo Cesar (another one of the defendants): I know my
co-defendants and also the Chino, Francisco Sampson alias Chua, I was a
witness to Chua’s marriage. Francisco Sampson was running a store until
about the middle of February, 1913, in the lower part of the house of
Merced Adran, who is my mother-in-law. In April or May, 1913, I was
living with my mother-in-law and my wife and children upstairs in the
same building where the Chino had his store. I know that Francisco
Sampson left the house of Merced Adran in the month of February, 1913,
because after he moved away I opened my store in the same building. I
opened my store there on March 10, 1913, long after the Chinaman had
moved out. This Exhibit A is my account book of the store. This
signature on the first page under the words ‘Approved for the effects
of the circular letter No. 298 of the Collector of Internal Revenue,
Gingoog, March 10, 1913,’ is that of Jose Fernandez, internal-revenue
agent.”

Claudio Guibuni says that while they were working on the church
Eulalio Cesar came and advised them to discontinue the work, saying
that if the church was completed,it would be of no use to the people.
No explanation whatever was given why Eulalio should make such a
statement. The record is absolutely silent with reference to his motive
for making the threat that the church would be destroyed. Guibuni first
stated that while he was going up the steps of his house about midnight
on May 1st, he saw a flame issue from the church. He then went near the
main entrance and saw a person set fire to the wall. After this the
flame spread and when the church was burning, he recognized each of the
defendants. He then ran to the lieutenant’s house, a distance of about
100 yards, aroused the latter, and they returned to the church
together about the time the defendants were leaving. Later on this
witness changed his testimony and stated that when he went to the
church the first time it was not then burning, but he did see Julian
Daamo set fire to the wall of the church. Adolfo Tigun stated that
Guibuni, upon arriving at his house, informed him that the church “has
been burned.” Tigun further stated that when he and Guibuni arrived
near the church he examined the surroundings of the church, looked in
toward the vestry and found Julian Daamo and the other defendants, and
that they came from the vestry of the church. This witness further
stated that when he and his companions arrived at the church the fire
had gained headway up to the top of the roof. It is admitted that the
church was constructed principally of bamboo and nipa. This kind of
material, of course, burns very rapidly when dry. If Guibuni saw a
sheet of flame issue from the church at the time he was going up the
steps of his house, it is quite certain that Tigun did not see the
defendants inside of the church and near the vestry at the time he
arrived, which must necessarily have been several minutes later. Again,
if the fire had reached the top of the roof at the time Tigun arrived
on the scene, he certainly did not then see the defendants inside of
the church. The provincial fiscal had examined these two witnesses when
he made a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that the testimony
was not sufficient to warrant a conviction.

The testimony of Francisco Sampson adds nothing to the case for the
prosecution because it is not worthy of credit. Sampson said he heard
the conversation among the defendants with reference to burning the
church more than one week before the church was burned. Later he says
the church was burned about one month after he moved his store into the
new building. That Sampson vacated the lower part of the house, wherein
he said the agreement to burn the church was made, prior to March 10,
there can be no question. Hermenegildo Cesar opened a store in the same
place on that date. This fact is established by his book of accounts,
which was approved on March 10 by the internal-revenue agent. Sampson
said nothing about hearing this conversation until after he had had
trouble with Eulalio Cesar, one of the defendants, over certain lands.
This trouble occurred some two years after the burning of the church.
Taking into consideration the great length of time which transpired
from the date the church was burned until these defendants were finally
brought to trial, together with the nature and character of the
evidence of the prosecution’s three witnesses and the fact that no
motive on the part of the defendants whatever was shown for destroying
the church, we must conclude that there is, at least, a very serious
doubt as to the guilt of the defendants. The trial judge failed to give
due consideration to the inherent weaknesses in the testimony of
Guibuni and Tigun and due weight to the motives which prompted the
Chinaman Sampson to testify against the defendants.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendants are acquitted, with costs de officio. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ., concur.