THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MATEO BERSABAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

“That
on or about May 8, 1925, in the municipality of Pototan, Iloilo, the
above named defendant did intentionally, maliciously, criminally and
treacherously and with cruelty, strike Pablo Cordoba with a bolo with
which he was provided, inflicting a wound on the right side of the
latter and cutting off afterwards his two arms and legs as a result of
which he died; and in order to conceal his crime, the defendant set
fire to the house where the act had taken place, which was completely
burnt, the body of said Pablo Cordoba having consequently been reduced
to coal. Contrary to law.”

After trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo sentenced the defendant to cadena perpetua,
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, with
the accessories provided by law and the costs. From this judgment, the
defendant appeals through his counsel, assigning as errors the finding
of the trial judge that the crime in question was committed by the
defendant, his holding that its commission was attended by the
circumstance of treachery, and that the acts alleged in the information
were performed, and in hot finding that there exists reasonable doubt.

We find it sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is the person responsible for the death of Pablo Cordoba, as
well as of the arson alleged in the information. We find in the record
no sufficient ground for doubting the veracity of the witnesses for the
prosecution, who affirmed having witnessed the act. On the other hand,
one cannot overlook the natural interest of the witness Laurencia
Panes, as mother of the defendant, when explaining the death of the
deceased in a manner favorable to her son and exempting him from
liability by saying that it occurred without the latter’s intervention.
Moreover, the trial judge who saw, heard and observed her while she was
testifying, did not find her worthy of credit.

The evidence
shows that the appellant treacherously assaulted Pablo Cordoba and
caused his death, and afterwards set fire to the house where the crime
had taken place, which was completely burnt down.

Such a criminal act was not in any manner whatsoever justifiable, and we do not find any merit in the assignments of error.

The information charges two crimes,—murder and arson,—which cannot be
considered as a complex crime, because neither was a necessary means
for committing the other, nor is this a case of one single act
constituting two or more crimes. Article 89 of the Penal Code is,
therefore, not applicable here.

In view of the fact that
it was not proven that after Pablo Cordoba had fallen to the ground, he
was still alive when the defendant continued to attack him, cutting off
his extremities, it seeming, on the contrary, to be inferred from the
evidence of the prosecution that said Cordoba was then already without
life, the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, that is, the act of
increasing the pain of the offended party, cannot be taken into
account, but that of the defendant being stepson of the deceased can.
(Art. 10, No. 1, Penal Code; decision of the supreme court of Spain of
July 26, 1877; I Viada’s Penal Code, question V under article 10, No.
1.)

This aggravating circumstance is compensated by the
mitigating one consisting in the lack of instruction of the defendant
considered by the trial court.

As to the arson, the
information does not allege the value of the house in question, nor
that it was inhabited; neither is there any evidence of its value.
This, however, does not mean that the act is not punishable, which must
be punished under article 557 of the Penal Code, case No. 1. We,
therefore, find the defendant guilty of the crime of arson punished by
said legal provision, with the compensation of the above-mentioned
circumstances, and for this reason the penalty to be imposed for the
crime of arson is the medium degree of the penalty, which, in the
instant case, is from 3 months and 11 days to 4 months and 20 days.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified, and the appellant sentenced for the crime of murder to the penalty of cadena perpetua,
with the accessories provided by article 55 of the Penal Code, and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000; and for the
crime of arson, to 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor, with the accessories provided by article 61 of the Penal Code, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.