THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTORIANO PINGKIAN AND ALEJANDRO NAPIÑAS. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Victortano Pingkian and Alejandro Napiñas were charged with arson, (together
with Segundino Enriquez and Dionisio Baylon before the Court of First Instance
of Zamboanga and, upon conviction, Pingkian and Napiñas were sentenced each to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 3 years of prision correccional
to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, to indemnify the offended party in
the sum of P4,670, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to
suffer the accessories of the law., and to pay the proportionate share of the
costs. Segundino Enriquez was not included in trial as he was still at large
while Dionisio Baylon was discharged having been utilized as a witness for the
Government. The case was originally taken to the Court of Appeals but because
the acts charged call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua, the case
was certified to this Court.

Victoriano Pingkian was the leader of an association of homeseekers
established in Disoy. Dipolog, Zamboanga of which Alejandro Napiñas was a
member. On July 31. 1951, a meeting of the. association was held in the house of
Pingkian which was attended to by Napiñas. After the meeting, at about 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon, Napiñas, accompanied by Victorio Piscos his tenant,
and Dionisio Baylon, his houseboy, set to return home, and, on their way, they
perceived a column of smoke rising ahead of them and, going over a hill, they
noted that the house of Napiñas was burning. Napiñas thereupon instructed Piscos
and Baylon to tether the carabaos grazing in a nearby field and he repaired to
the house of Pingkian to report what was happening. After having tethered the
carabaos, Piscos and Baylon proceeded to the house of Pingkian and there they
found one Segundino Enriquez, a neighbor of Napiñas, Pingkian, Napiñas and
Enriquez went into a huddle, conferring in a law voice, and thereafter Pingkian
stood up and, taking a garand rifle from a corner, handed it over to Enriquez
instructing him to go and burn the house of Ramon Siocon whom he suspected of
being responsible for the burning of Napiñas’ house. After Pingkian had shown to
Enriquez how to handle a rifle, Napiñas, Baylon and Enriquez left for the
latter’s house where they ate their supper. After supper Enriquez said that they
should all go together to burn the house of the Siocons and that there was
nothing to be afraid of because in any event they would have two lawyers to.
defend them.

Shortly thereafter Pingkian, armed with a rifle, arrived and was surprised to
see Napiñas in the house when he should have gone with Enriquez and Baylon
because he was most concerned in the matter. So Pingkian and Napinas followed
Enriquez and Baylon while Piscos stayed behind because he had stomach ache.
Baylon was, given some matches, by Napiñas and, upon order of Enriquez and
Napinas at the point of a gun, he set fire on the granaryr which was five meters
away from the house, which also caught fire, While the house was burning, Jose
Manuel and his companions, who were then sleeping, woke up and, looking out of
the window, Manuel saw four persons one of whom was carrying a gun which
exploded, After burning the house and the granary, the group returned to the
house of Enriquez and there warned Piscos not to tell anybody about the burning
on pain of death As a result the Siocon family suffered losses in the amount of
P4,670.00, which represents the value of the housa and the granary, together
with the contents thereof, which included the furniture, household effects.
personal belongings, medicines, beddings, cavanes of palay and corn, foodstuffs
and farming implements.

Victoriano Pingkian in his defense testified that on July 31, 1951 he was in
his house in Disoy, Dipolog, Zamaboanga with Joaquin Codosales and did not leava
the whole night of that day and could not have participated in the burning of
the house and granary of the Siocons; that Alejandro Napiñas came to his house
at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon and reported to him that his house had
been burned; and that Piscos, Enriquez and Baylon did not go to his house in the
evening of said date. He admitted, however, that he was the leader of the
association of homaseekers established in his place.

Alejandro Napiñas, in turn, testified that in the morning of July 31, 1951 he
was in Katipunan; that he left Katipunan for Disoys arriving at 5:30 o’clock in
the afternoon, only to find his house already burned; that he reported the
matter to Victoriano Pingkian, the leader of their association, who told him to
report the matter to tha authorities; that he went to the house of Enriquez to
rest because his house was burned and there he saw Baylon and Pisoos with whom
he took his supper and he slept there that evening, but before going to bed he
saw Enriquez and Baylon leave the house to tether his carabaos; that at about
midnight he heard Enriquez say, “it is already burned”; that he did not leave
the house of Enriquez from the time of his arrival up to the time he woke up
next morning; that the following morning he reported the burning of his house to
barrio lieutenant Pantaleon Pagkalinawan after which he returned to Katipunan to
make copra; and that while he was going to the dispensary at Dipolog, he was
apprehended by a policeman.

There is no doubt that the burning of the house and granary of the Siocons
was carried out at the instigation of appellant Pingkian who unquestionably was
looked up to as the leader of his companions in the community being the head of
the association to which they belonged. This was demonstrated by the fact that
when the house of Napiñas was burned his first reaction was to proceed to the
house of Pingkian to seek his advice as to. the action he should take. And in
the gathering that was held immediately after that incident Pingkian, Napiñas,
and Enriquez went into a huddle and thereafter Pingkian stood up and instructed
those present to proceed and burn the house of the Siocon family. It was even
Pingkian who gave a garand rifle to Enriquez and showed him how to handle it.
The role he played did not consist in mere instigation or persuasion, for he
even followed up his instruction to see to it that it be carried out. Thus,
after Napiñas, Enriquez, Baylon and Piscos had departed, he followed them, and
upon seeing that Napiñas stayed behind he remonstrated with the latter telling
him that he should have gone along with the others because he was most concerned
with the matter. Then, Pingkian and Napiñas proceeded to the house of the
Siocons and after the house and the granary were burned, Pingkian even fired
several shots in an attempt to silence the inmates of the house.

With regard to the participation of appellant Napiñas in carrying out the
criminal act, the record also furnishes enough evidence. In the first place, tha
house of Napiñas was burned for which reason he sought the advice of Pingkian as
to the action he should take on the matter. In the gathering that took place in
the latter’s house immediately thereafter, Napiñas was found in huddle with
Pingkian and Enriquez and it was after their secret conference that Pingkian
announced that they should take retaliatory measure against the Siocon family
because there was no doubt in their mind that it was the Siocons that were
responsible for its burning. When Napiñas went to the house of Enriquez after
that fateful meeting he joined Enriquez in urging Baylon to help in carrying out
the plan and, while at first reluctant because probably he thought his i^irt was
no longer necessary, Napiñas was at last prevailed upon by Pingkian to go to the
house of the Siocons and there both took steps in seeing that the plan be
carried out. The part he played in the act cannot therefore be mistaken.

No valid reason has freen advanced why Piscos and Baylon should voluntarily
testify against the herein appellants, especially against Napiñas who was their
former employer. They harbored no resentment against them and, in fact, they
have every reason to be grateful to them not only for the favors they had
received from Napiñas, but because Pingkian was hailed by them as their friend
and leader. It is true that, during the trial of this case these witnesses lived
for sometime in the house of Ramon Siocon, but this circumstance cannot argue
against their veracity it appearing that they were made to live in said house
for their personal safety because, having consented to testify for the
prosecution, they had aroused the animosity of tha sympathizers of tha
appellants. That was done merely as a precautionary measure and not with the
intent of tampering with their testimony.

Counsel for appellant Napinas had made an attempt to discredit tha testimony
of the prosecution witnesses because of certain discrepancies and contradictions
he found in the affidavits subscribed by them in connection with their testimony
in court. Indeed, there are certain matters which were stated by these witnesses
in their affidavits which do not appear in their declarations in court but, as
the Solicitor General has observed, “they are more apparent than real, and are
more in the nature of the usual minor flaws that characterize the statements of
the most honest witnesses. It should be noted, moreover, that Piscos and Manuel
are unlettered farmers, while Baylon was a menial serving in the Napiñas’
household.”

The decision appealed from being in accordance with law and tha evidence, the
same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, and
Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.