PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN BRAVO Y ESTABILLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Benjamin Bravo versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the appeal of Benjamin Bravo, whom the People charged with arson with double murder for setting fire to the house of Mauro Camacho on the night of 10 August 1989, a fire that killed Shirley Camacho and her four month old son Jerickson and spread to the house of Dominador Camacho. No one saw the torch applied; the conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's cleanest teaching on how a chain of circumstantial evidence may establish the identity of an arsonist, and on why alibi fails when physical impossibility is not shown.

Procedural History

An Information for arson with double murder was filed against Benjamin Bravo before the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33. After trial, the trial court convicted him of arson under Section 5 of Presidential Decree Number 1613, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and awarded nominal, death indemnity, and moral damages to the offended parties. Bravo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment but modified it by adding exemplary damages of 50,000 pesos to Fidel Camacho. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs; both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that they would adopt their existing briefs.

Facts

Mauro Camacho lived in a two storey wooden house in Barangay Magungunay, Naguilian, La Union, with his children Merlita, Mauro Junior, and Fidel, his daughter in law Shirley, and his grandson Jerickson. On the night of 10 August 1989, at about half past nine, Mauro was lying in his bedroom on the second floor when he heard gunshots. He then heard Benjamin Bravo calling him to come down. When Mauro did not heed the call, Bravo went up the stairs, pointed a long firearm at him, and demanded that he bring out the akusan, an object said to be used in witchcraft, accusing Mauro of putting a curse on Bravo's sick father.

Mauro kept silent. Bravo turned and, on his way down the stairs, uttered that he would burn them all and that all of them would die. About fifteen seconds later, Mauro saw a big fire on the second floor coming from the northwest, from the room of Shirley and Jerickson. Mauro and his children Merlita and Mauro Junior jumped out of the south window; Shirley and Jerickson perished. Fidel, who was at a wake in an adjacent barrio, ran home upon hearing gunshots and learned from his father that his wife and son had died.

Alejandro Marzan, Mauro's brother, was at the same wake. He saw the fire to the north, rushed toward it, and midway met Bravo running in the opposite direction, carrying a long firearm; by the brightness of the moon he recognized him at about an arm's length. Bravo's defense was denial and alibi: that he was in San Fabian accompanying his father to a faith healer, corroborated by his father and a cousin, with witnesses to his good moral character.

Issues

• Whether or not the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Benjamin Bravo set the fire.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi may prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the penalty and the award of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

This is the rule under which the Court tested whether the chain of circumstances could identify Bravo as the arsonist.

Section 5 of Presidential Decree Number 1613 provides the penalty for arson when death results, which the Court applied in fixing the sentence:

Under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1613, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed when death results.

Because Republic Act Number 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain pointing to no one else but Bravo. Proof of arson is complete when the evidence establishes the corpus delicti, that is, a fire caused by criminal agency, and the identity of the defendant as the one responsible. The fire was proven by the burnt house, the charred bodies, and the testimonies; identity was proven by five circumstances: the Bravo family's accusation that the Camachos practiced witchcraft on Bravo's sick father; the burning of the Camacho house less than a week after the rumors spread; Bravo's presence at the scene at half past nine, daring Mauro to come down and pointing a long firearm at him; his utterance while descending the stairs that all of them would die and that he would burn the house, followed fifteen seconds later by a big fire; and Alejandro Marzan meeting Bravo running from the direction of the fire, carrying a long firearm, under moonlight. The Court stressed that direct evidence is not the only matrix from which guilt may be drawn, for otherwise felons would go free and the community would be denied proper protection.

On the second issue, the Court held that alibi is inherently weak and unreliable against positive and credible testimonies, and becomes less plausible when corroborated by relatives and friends who may not be impartial. Physical impossibility is essential: the accused must show that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the scene or its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. Bravo failed to show this, since even if he had gone to San Fabian earlier that day, he could have returned to Naguilian after his father's treatment was completed by five o'clock in the afternoon, the distance taking only about two hours to negotiate.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in light of Republic Act Number 9346, and affirmed the award of damages, including the exemplary damages added by the Court of Appeals.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for arson, the corpus delicti is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused; the identity of the arsonist may be established by circumstantial evidence under Section 4 of Rule 133, provided the circumstances are more than one, the facts from which the inferences are drawn are proven, and their combination produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Second, alibi, to prosper, must be supported by proof of physical impossibility of presence at the scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of the crime; corroboration by relatives and friends does not strengthen it, for such witnesses may not be impartial.

Third, where death results from arson, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, but the death penalty may not be imposed because of Republic Act Number 9346, leaving reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Court affirmed in full the decision finding Benjamin Bravo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the damages awarded below sustained.

Remember This

Memorize the line that direct evidence is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt, and that the combination of circumstances must leave no reasonable doubt as to criminal responsibility. Examiners use this case to test circumstantial evidence in arson and the requirement of physical impossibility in alibi.