G.R. No. 104725. March 10, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAMIANO AGGIHAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PUNO, J.:
In an Information,[1] dated
July 21, 1989, DAMIANO AGGIHAO was charged with ARSON before the Regional Trial
Court (Branch 14) of Lagawe, Ifugao,[2]
allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 28th day of August, 1988 at Lagawe,
Ifugao Province, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, set fire to
the inhabited house and dwelling owned by Antonio Eheng thereby causing the
complete destruction of the house to the damage and prejudice of the said owner
in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos.”
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon his arraignment on December 5, 1989, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty and underwent trial.
These are the facts:
Spouses Betty Eheng and Antonio Eheng were former residents of
Lona, Lagawe, Ifugao. They had a
typical native house, with an area of, more or less, six meters by ten
meters. The walls were made of sawali;
the roof of cogon with some G.I. sheets; and the floor of hardwood. At the back of their house was a
pigpen. Unfortunately, on August 28,
1988, the house was burned down.
Carolyn Eheng, a ten-year old daughter of Antonio and Betty
Eheng, was in the premises of their house in the morning of August 28,
1988. She was playing and eating pomelo
when accused Damiano Aggihao arrived. The accused asked her the whereabouts of her parents. Innocently, she told him that her mother
went to the “kaingin” while her father was out selling “ice-buko.”
Accused then told her: “When your father and mother arrive
home, tell them that they will leave this house because I will destroy
it.” He ordered her to fetch her younger sister who was then inside the
house. She obeyed.
Thereafter, accused got hold of a hammer and “gas”. He went to the pigpen and smashed its
roof. As the pigs scampered away, he
set the pigpen on fire using the cogon grass he had gathered.
Accused then hit the roof of their house with a piece of wood
until it collapsed. He gathered some of
the fallen roof’s cogon grass and scattered it on the foot of the house’s
post. Again, he set the cogon grass on
fire. Carolyn could only stare. She saw the post of their house turn
ember. Helpless, she proceeded to the
house of her aunt Lourdes Rasote in Lagawe proper, some fifty meters away from
theirs. She recounted the incident to
her aunt Lourdes. It was then about
noontime.
Betty Eheng left their “kaingin” in the
afternoon of August 28, 1988. On her
way home, she noticed smoke emitting from their house. As she went nearer, she saw the burning
pigpen and the accused Damiano Aggihao. The accused was gathering cogon grass which he placed beside the post of
their house. From a 4 x 4 bottle on his
hand, he poured something on the cogon and put it on fire. Thereafter, he left.
Betty tried to save their properties. Hurriedly, she extinguished the flame on the post of their
house. The pigpen, however, had been
razed down. She next searched for her
children. She found them in the house
of her sister-in-law, Lourdes Rasote. They decided to stay temporarily in the house of Lourdes the whole
afternoon.
Antonio Eheng had no inkling of the burning of their house. At around five o’clock in the afternoon
after a day’s work, he headed for home. He was walking near the town hall of Lagawe when policeman Bonifacio
Bogbog advised him not to proceed to their house. The policeman told him: “Please don’t go home yet because
your sister came to the (police) Station and informed us that Aguihao (sic)
went there and requested the children to go out and then burned the house and
he destroyed the pig pen (sic).”[3] He
went to his sister’s house where he met his crying children. Their children pleaded: “Daddy, let us
not go home to Lona because Aguihao came and let the children go out of the
house, and destroyed the pigpen and burned the house.” He followed their
plea.[4]
Later in the evening, Antonio asked his wife Betty to retrieve
the blankets from their house. She
obliged and as she was approaching their house, she saw a man moving in its
premises. The mysterious man lighted a
match, and their house went into flame. The flare, however, illuminated the face of the man whom she recognized as accused Aggihao. Accused retreated when he saw that the house
was already on fire. She then rushed
back to her sister-in-law’s house in Lagawe. Trembling, she narrated what she saw. Antonio was furious. Her sister, however, advised them to keep
calm and let government handle the situation. For their own safety, they did not report to the authorities that same
evening.
The following morning, or on August 29, 1988, Antonio and Betty
Eheng reported the incident to the authorities. Their sworn statements[5] were
taken by Patrolman Clemencio Kimayong and Corporal Gregorio Dangayo, Jr. On the other hand, Carolyn gave her sworn
statement the following day.
The foregoing facts were the subject of testimonies of Antonio,
Betty and Carolyn. Betty and Antonio
Eheng further said that accused Damiano Aggihao burned their house because
accused was claiming the land occupied by their house. Accused allegedly insisted that he bought it
from a certain Agnes Gawi. The spouses,
on the other hand, claimed that the land is owned by Antonio’s grandmother and
that the burned house was built a long time ago by their ancestors. Considering its age, the spouses valued
their house at thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).
Patrolman Bonifacio Bogbog corroborated the testimony of Antonio
Eheng that he advised the latter not to proceed to Lona so as not to further
aggravate the situation.
The defense was anchored
on alibi.
Accused Damiano Aggihao,
Administrative Officer of the Tinoc District Hospital of the Department of
Health (DOH), claimed that from August 28, 1988 until September 1, 1988, he was
on official business at the DOH-Regional Health Office No. 2 in Tuguegarao,
Cagayan. In support of his alibi, he
submitted the Visitors’ Logbook[6] of said regional health office. The fifth line of pages 48 and 49 thereof
showed the following handwritten data:
“DATE NAME x x x TIME IN / OUT “
8/28/88 Damiano Aguihao 2:00 P.M./ 8:00 A.M.
Accused Damiano Aggihao also submitted an
unnumbered Special Order,[7] dated
August 19, 1988, issued by German A. Mabbayad, OIC-Chief of Hospital, directing
him to travel to the RHO No. 2 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Accused, further, presented his Itinerary of
Travel,[8]
dated September 7, 1988, and a Certificate of Appearance,[9] dated
August 31, 1988, signed by Records Officer Basilio Molina.
His story was corroborated by defense witnesses Domingo Bat-tong
and Dr. German Mabbayad.
Witness Domingo Bat-tong testified that on August 28, 1988, he
was the security guard on duty when Damiano allegedly came to the RHO. Following the standard procedure of the
regional office, he claimed that, in his presence, Damiano Aggihao affixed his
name on the Visitors’ Logbook opposite the date August 28, 1988. Accused indicated in the logbook that he
would follow-up official matters. The
security guard further averred he saw the accused in the dormitory from August
28 until August 30, 1988. On September
1, 1988, he allegedly saw the accused in the Records Section of the Regional
Office.
For his part, Dr. Mabbayad testified that he issued the
unnumbered Special Order dated August 19, 1988. He also identified his signature on the Itinerary of Travel which
was submitted by accused Aggihao for reimbursement purposes.
After trial, accused Aggihao was found guilty as charged. The relevant portion of the trial court’s
Decision,[10]
dated December 23, 1991, is as follows:
“The pro and con in the case at bar
having been passed upon, and finding in the light of the evidence and positive
testimony of, and the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator
of the crime by the eye witnesses for the prosecution, the Court holds that the
prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense of
alibi interposed by the accused implying the impossibility of his presence at
the scene of the crime on the day of its alleged commission as he was in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, about 250 kilometers away from Lona, Lagawe, Ifugao, on
August 28, 1988 is not supported by competent and convincing evidence.
“x
x x.
“Applying the xxx provision of
Presidential Decree No. 1613, the imposable penalty is Reclusion Temporal to
Reclusion Perpetua, and considering the attendance of special aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime under Section 4, paragraph 3
thereof, as established by the uncontradicted and unrebutted evidence for the
prosecution to the effect that the accused burned the house of the private
complainant, Antonio Eheng, motivated by his desire to drive them away from the land where it is erected due to
the misunderstanding between the accused and the private complainant over the
said land, which is allegedly bought by the accused from Mrs. Agnes Gawi, which
property is maintained by the Ehengs, the owner of the dwelling that was burned
on the day in question, which circumstance constrained the Court to impose the
maximum penalty prescribed by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1613 as
mandated by Section 4, paragraph 3 thereof.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby sentence the
accused Damiano Aguihao (sic), to suffer the penalty of imprisonment the
duration of which is Reclusion
Perpetua, and to indemnify the owner of the house Antonio Eheng in the sum of
Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos representing civil liability. Cost de officio.
“SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, accused appealed to this Court. Accused contends that the trial court erred:
“1. In convicting the accused-appellant relying
heavily and assessing as fully credible the testimonies of Antonio Eheng, Betty
Eheng, and Carolyn Eheng, despite the apparent and evident close relationship
of said witnesses which is that of husband, wife, and daughter, respectively,
and notwithstanding the fact that their testimonies are loaded with substantial
contradictions and inconsistencies;
“2. In failing to appreciate and consider in favor
of accused-appellant the well established and documented defense of alibi interposed by appellant.
“3. In imposing the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
despite the absence of clear proof of the attendance of a special aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the crime charged.”
The appeal hinges on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses
vis-a-vis the defense witnesses. Corollary thereto, accused assails the trial court decision for
rejecting his alibi which was duly supported by documentary evidence. He claims that Dr. German Mabbayad and
Domingo Bot-tong were unbiased witnesses.
We affirm the judgment of conviction.
The accused has been positively identified by two (2) witnesses
as the arsonist. Ten (10) year old
Carolyn saw him as he placed cogon on the post of their house and set it on
fire.[11]
Carolyn also saw him when he burned the pigpen of their house. Similarly, Betty Eheng saw the accused set
to flame what remained of their house in the evening of August 28, 1988 when she
returned there to retrieve their blankets. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Betty Eheng did not
actually see the accused on this occasion, still, the accused cannot escape
liability for when he set the house on fire in the afternoon or noon of August
28, 1988, he already consummated the crime of arson.
The defense contends that the testimonies of Carolyn Eheng and
Betty Eheng, vary as to the time when the pigpen was allegedly burned by the
accused. Accused points out that
Carolyn declared that the burning took place in the morning while Betty claimed
it happened in the afternoon. Thus, the
defense suggests that the arson story was fabricated by the Eheng family to get
rid of accused Aggihao as the latter was claiming ownership over their land. The alleged inconsistency deserves scant
consideration and would not affect the judgment of conviction.
It is far fetched for Carolyn to fabricate the story against
accused Aggihao as her testimony is replete with minutiae of the burning
incident. It is difficult for her to
concoct these details considering her tender age and her lack of knowledge of
the misunderstanding between her parents and Aggihao. She testified as follows:
FISCAL:
Q: Please
tell the court what happened in the morning of August 28, 1988?
CAROLYN:
A: When
we were playing and at the same time eating pomelo, Damiano Aggihao arrived.
Q: After
he arrived, what did he do?
A: He
came near me and asked where did my mama and daddy go.
Q: And
what did you tell him?
A: I
told him that my father went to sell ice buko while my mama went to the
kaingin.
Q: After
he gave you that answer what else did he tell you?
A: He
told me, “when your father and mother arrive home, you tell them that they
will leave this house because I will destroy it.”
Q: After
telling that to you, what else did he do?
A: He
told me that I will go to fetch that child in our house.
Q: After
telling you that, what did you do?
A: I
went to fetch the child.
Q: After
bringing out the child from your house, what else happened?
A: He took hold of a hammer and gas and went to the pig pen (sic) and cut
into pieces the roof and went to get some cogon then after that he drove away
the pigs and started to light the sty.
Q: After
setting fire that pigpen, what happened next?
A: He
hit the roof of the house with a piece of wood which made the roof fall.
Q: After
hitting the roof with a piece of wood, the roof fell?
A: Yes.
Q: Whose
house is that which Damiano Aggihao hit?
A: That
is our house.
Q: And
after hitting the roof of your house with a piece of wood, what did you do?
xxx
A: He
gathered the cogon that fell from the roof and brought to where the post of the
house is and set fire on the cogon while we proceeded to the Lagawe proper.
Q: What happened to the post of your house when
accused set fire on that cogon where the posts of your house were standing?
A: There
was ember on the post.
Q: And after noticing ember on the post which
accused set on fire, what else did you do?
A: We
were looking at it and afterwards, we started to go towards Lagawe proper.
Q: Upon
reaching Lagawe proper, I informed my aunt what happened to the house.
COURT:
Q: What did your aunt do if she did anything?
A: She advised us to stay there in their house.
(TSN,
December 17, 1990, pp. 29-31).
Carolyn repeated her story to her aunt at
around noontime of August 28, 1988. The
trial court believed her. We too,
believe her. For her part, Betty
testified she left the kaingin in the afternoon. Thus, she was unable to see who actually burned
the pigpen.[12]
The testimony of Betty did not therefore, contradict the testimony of her
daughter.
The defense further insinuates that the Ehengs had a hand on the
arson. It cited two reasons: they did
not immediately report the incident to the authorities, and the Eheng family
planned to pass that night at the house of Lourdes in Lagawe proper. Had they not done so, accused concludes, the
arson could have been prevented. We
find these arguments untenable.
The Ehengs are not well off. Their house was a modest one. Be
that as it may, we find it unbelievable that the Ehengs would burn their own
house for the flimsy reasons surmised by accused. On the contrary, the records show that it was the accused who
nurtured a grudge against the Ehengs. He claimed ownership over the land occupied by the Eheng family. We share the observation made by the
Solicitor General that “it is highly unnatural and illogical for the Eheng
family to have put their own house on fire since proof of their actual
occupancy would be obliterated (and) thereby weaken their claim on their
land.”
We find no reason to depart from the settled rule that “this
Court accords great respect to the credibility of witnesses as weighed by the trial courts for
they are in a better position to decide the question, having seen and heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.”[13] Nor
should the relationship of the witnesses for the prosecution diminish their
credibility. Time and again, we have
ruled that family relationship does not by itself render a witness’ testimony
inadmissible or devoid of probative value.[14]
The documentary evidence presented by accused Damiano Aggihao to
prove his defense of alibi will not exculpate him. It is not fool-proof. The
visitors logbook submitted by witness Domingo Bat-tong shows that at around two o’clock in the afternoon of August
28, 1988, accused was at the Regional Health Office No. 2 of Cagayan,
Tuguegarao, “to follow-up official matters.” It cannot be disputed
that August 28, 1988 was a Sunday. We take judicial notice that government
offices do not transact official business on Sundays. Thus, we seriously doubt the truthfulness of the allegation of
the accused that he was in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, on the date the arson was
committed.
Moreover, the visitors’ logbook reveals that it did not reflect
the accurate list of visitors of the regional office, as shown by the fact that
there were no visitors registered between the dates June 21, 1988, and August 28,
1988. By the nature of its function as
people oriented, the Department of Health’s regional office is a busy one. During the hearing, the security guard
Bat-tong who testified he saw the accused in the regional office, from August
28, 1988 until September 1, 1988, failed to explain the absence of entry of
visitors for the period mentioned in the said logbook.
The demeanor of Bat-tong as a witness did not reflect
sincerity. We note the sharp
observation of the trial court, viz:
“xxx on cross-examination the witness Battung was evasive
trying to be smart xxx
“xxx
“The answers of the witness xxx reveals (sic) the falsity of his testimony, for it is highly
incredible that he does not know whether or not their Office had another Log
Book for visitors other than Exhibit “3”, aggravated by his statement
that he cannot recall if there were visitors during the whole month of July,
1988 which is unbelievable considering that he admitted he was on duty during
the whole month of July, 1988, and it is the procedure as testified to by him
to let the visitors register in the Log Book. It is noteworthy to be stated
here, that it took the witness for quite sometime to answer as he got nervous
and blushing until he finally broke down and stated “he cannot
recall.” The Court,
observing keenly the deportment of the witness on the witness stand, is of the
considered view that he was being bothered by his conscience xxx.” (emphasis ours)
(Decision, December 23, 1991, pp. 25-26).
Accused cannot also capitalize on the special travel order issued
in his favor. This Order is mere proof
that he was authorized to travel to Tuguegarao. It does not prove that accused, in fact, went to Tuguegarao as
directed by the Chief of Hospital, Dr. German Mabbayad. In his testimony, the good doctor himself
went no further than to identify the due execution and authenticity of the
Special Order he issued. He admitted he
did not ascertain if the accused indeed went to Tuguegarao.
The Itinerary of Travel presented by the accused is not also
beyond question. It is
self-serving. Dr. Mabbayad testified
that it was prepared by the accused himself.
In the light of the circumstances in field, we hold that the
guilt of accused Damiano Aggihao had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
We now come to the third
issue on the propriety of the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Accused was charged and
penalized under Section 3 (2), in
relation to Section 4, of
Presidential Decree No. 1613, which provide:
“SEC. 3. Other Cases of Arson. – The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is
any of the following:
“xxx.
“2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
Sec. 4. Special
Aggravating Circumstances in Arson.- The
penalty in case of arson shall be imposed in its maximum period:
“xxx
“3. If the offender is
motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned;
Accused urges that the special aggravating circumstance of spite
or hatred was erroneously considered by the trial court as it was not alleged
in the information. Hence, he insists
that the penalty should not be imposed in the maximum period. This is
incorrect.
In People vs. Arbolante,[15] we
held: “The elements of the crime of arson under section 3 of P.D. No. 1613
xxx simply include: (1) that there is intentional burning; and (2) that what is
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.”
The prosecution established the fact of intentional burning of an
inhabited house. The special
aggravating circumstance of spite, albeit not alleged in the information, may
be proved during the trial, in the same manner that “a generic aggravating
circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code may be proved during trial over the objection of the defense and
may be appreciated in imposing the penalty.”[16] The reason for applying the same rule is
obvious: the special aggravating circumstance under PD 1613, just like the
generic aggravating circumstance, does not change the character of the offense
charged. It only guides the court in
imposing the proper penalty. The
case of People vs. Gadiano[17]
relied upon by accused Aggihao, refers to the qualifying circumstances of
evident premeditation and treachery. As
they were not alleged in the information, they can not be considered against
the accused. If at all, the same can be
treated only as generic aggravating circumstances. The rationale for this rule is that a qualifying circumstance
changes the nature of the offense. In
the case at bench, the presence of the special aggravating circumstance did not
change the nature of the offense charged.
We also note that during the trial, accused did not object when
the spouses Eheng testified on the motive behind the burning of their
house. During the cross-examination of
Antonio and Betty Eheng, the defense counsel even propounded questions pointing
to Agnes Gawi as the alleged owner of the land in dispute. Consequently, the trial court did not err
when it appreciated against the accused the special aggravating circumstance
that he was motivated by spite or hatred towards the Eheng family when he
burned their inhabited house. The
maximum penalty of reclusion
perpetua was, therefore, correctly imposed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of conviction
appealed from is AFFIRMED in
toto. Accused DAMIANO
AGGIHAO is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 3 (2), in relation to
Section 4, of Presidential Decree No. 1613. He is also directed to pay the spouses Betty and Antonio Eheng, the sum
of thirty thousand pesos, (P30,000.00) representing the value of the house as
alleged in the information. With costs
against appellant.
“SO ORDERED.”
Narvasa, C.J.,
(Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.
[1] Original Records, p.
1.
[2]
Case docketed as Criminal Case No. 706.
[3]
TSN, March 5, 1991, p. 4
[4]
Ibid, pp. 6-7.
[5]
See Exhibit “1” (Sworn Statement of Betty Eheng) and Exhibit
“A” (Sworn Statement of Antonio Eheng).
[6]
See Exhibits “3-1” and “3-1-A.”
[7]
Marked as Exhibit “4.”
[8]
Marked as Exhibit “5.”
[9]
Marked as Exhibit “6.”
[10]
Penned by Presiding Judge Segundo B. Catral.
[11]
TSN, December 17, 1990, pp. 29-30.
[12]
Ibid, p. 14.
[13]
People vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 89036, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 109,
113.
[14]
People vs. Hasiron, G.R. 100797, October 15, 1992, 214 SCRA 586, 594.
[15]
G.R. 96713, October 17, 1991, 203 SCRA 85, 97.
[16]
AQUINO, The Revised Penal Code, 1987 edition, Vol. 1, p. 301.
[17]
G.R. L-31818, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 559.