2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.—Positive

identification, where categorical and consistent, without any
showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying
on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and
self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. The
appellants had not shown that it was physically impossible for
G.R. No. 180762. March 4, 2009.* them to be present at the time and place of the crime.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. _______________

CARLITO DE LEON, BIEN DE LEON, CORNELIO
“AKA” NELIO CABILDO and FILOTEO DE LEON, *  THIRD DIVISION.

appellants.
618
Criminal Law; Arson; Elements.—Under the following
provision, the elements of arson are: (a) there is intentional
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
burning; and, (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited
house or dwelling. The appellate court correctly found that the People vs. De Leon
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
presence of the two essential elements of the offense.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; Findings and conclusions of
Same; Same; Evidence; When it is shown that one has
trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a
deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is not bound
badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of
to produce further evidence of his wrongful intent.—Although
observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.—We find
intent may be an ingredient of the crime of arson, it may be
no reason to disturb the trial court’s reliance on the testimony
inferred from the acts of the accused. There is a presumption
of the prosecution witnesses. Findings and conclusions of trial
that one intends the natural consequences of his act; and when
courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge
it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building, the
of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the
prosecution is not bound to produce further evidence of his
demeanor of witnesses as they testify. Only the trial judge can
wrongful intent. If there is an eyewitness to the crime of arson,
observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame,
he can give in detail the acts of the accused. When this is done
hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the
the only substantial issue is the credibility of the witness.
scant or full realization of an oath — all of which are useful
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Alibi; Denials; Positive aids for an accurate determination of a witness’ honesty and
identification, where categorical and consistent, without any sincerity.
showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on
Same; Same; Same; Corpus Delicti; Words and Phrases;
the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not
Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime—it is the fact
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

that a crime has actually been committed; In arson, the corpus This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of
delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of Appeals dated May 21, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 26390
the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a house burned down and which affirmed with modification the Decision of the
of its having been intentionally caused.—Proof of the corpus Regional Trial Court of Nueva Ecija, Branch 352 finding
delicti is indispensable in the prose-cution of arson, as in all herein appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
kinds of criminal offenses. Corpus delicti means the substance crime of arson and sentencing them to suffer the penalty
of the crime; it is the fact that a crime has actually been of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the private
committed. In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by complainant P2,000.00 as temperate damages and
proof of the bare occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
remains of a house burned down and of its having been On June 14, 1989, an Information3 was filed charging
intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a Gaudencio Legaspi, Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon,
single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the Cornelio Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon with the crime of
corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. The corpus delicti has arson. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
been satisfactorily proven in the instant case.
“That on or about the 5th day of April, 1986, in the
Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Special Municipality of Peñaranda, Province of Nueva Ecija,
Aggravating Circumstances; Penalties; Syndicates; The crime Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
of arson is committed by a syndicate where it is carried out by the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
a group of three or more persons.—The appellate court together and mutually aiding and helping one another, did then
correctly imposed the penalty in its maximum period, i.e., and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously burn or set on
reclusion perpetua considering the presence of the special fire the house of one RAFAEL MERCADO, an inhabited house
aggravating circumstance. The crime was committed by a or dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of said Rafael
syndicate since it was carried out by a group of three or more Mercado in an amount that may be awarded to him under the
persons. Civil Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”4
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
_______________
619
1  Rollo, pp. 2-22; Penned by Associate Justice Japar B.
Dimaampao and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes
VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 619 (now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Associate
People vs. De Leon Justice Mario L. Guariña III.
2  CA Rollo, pp. 51-55; Penned by Judge Dorentino Z. Floresta.

  The Solicitor General for appellee. 3  Records, p. 71.

  Abesamis Law Offices for appellant. 4  Id.

620
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 9  Arraigned on July 10, 1990; See Records, p. 162.
10 Died on February 23, 1988; Certification dated January 22, 1990
People vs. De Leon
from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija.
Records, p. 117.
Gaudencio Legaspi died on February 5, 1987 prior to 11 TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 4.
his arraignment.5 12 TSN, May 4, 1993, p. 9; TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 5.
Appellants Bien de Leon,6 Carlito de Leon,7 Filoteo 13 Id., at p. 10; Id., at pp. 6-7.
de Leon8 and Nelio Cabildo9 were subsequently
arraigned and they all pleaded not guilty to the charge. 621
The facts of the case are as follows:
At around 8:30 in the evening of April 5, 1986,
VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 621
Aquilina Mercado Rint (Aquilina) and her sister Leonisa
Mercado (Leonisa), together with their nephew Narciso People vs. De Leon
Mercado, Jr., (Junior) were inside a hut owned by their
father Rafael Mercado10 (Rafael) located on a tumana in On April 6, 1986, Police Officer Lucio Mercado
Polillo, San Josef, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. The loud and (Lucio) conducted an investigation at the scene of the
insistent barking of their dog prompted Aquilina to peep crime and saw a big wood still on fire. A certain Julio
through the window and saw five men approaching the took pictures of the remains of the hut.14
premises whom she recognized as Gaudencio Legaspi Aquilina and Leonisa valued the hut at P3,000.00 and
and herein appellants. Aquilina and Leonisa hurriedly claimed that a pair of earrings, some beddings, rice,
went out of the hut and hid behind a pile of wood nearby P1,500.00 in cash and plenty of wood were also lost in
while Junior was dispatched to call for help. the fire.15 They also testified that prior to the incident,
From their hiding place, they saw appellants surround appellants had been to the premises, destroyed the plants,
the hut11 and set to fire the cogon roofing.12 While the the fence and a hut which was first built therein.
hut was burning, Leonisa grabbed a flashlight from her Appellants likewise physically attacked their father and
sister and focused the same at the group in order to see issued threats that if he would not give up his claim on
them more clearly. Upon seeing a light focused on them, the land, something untoward would happen to him; and
Gaudencio ordered the others to leave and the men that their father Rafael filed several cases for Malicious
immediately fled the premises.13 By the time Junior Mischief, Forcible Entry and Serious Physical Injuries
arrived with his uncles, the hut was already razed to the against appellants.
ground. Appellants denied the charge against them.
Carlito alleged that on the day of the alleged incident,
_______________ he was working in Cavite where he had been staying for
a year with his family; that his uncle Gaudencio was
5  Id., at p. 119. originally in possession of the tumana contrary to
6  Arraigned on April 19, 1990; See Records, p. 136. Rafael’s claims; that his uncle used to plant vegetables
7  Arraigned on May 9, 1990; See Records, p. 140. and make charcoal therein until 1975 when he took over
8  Id. upon the latter’s request; and that when Gaudencio
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

passed away in 1987, he applied for a patent over the testified that since 1982, he has been living in Rizal,
tumana with the Bureau of Lands.16 Nueva Ecija which is about 35 kilometers away from
Carlito also alleged that there was actually no Peñaranda.20 For his part, Filoteo corroborated the claims
structure on the premises because Rafael’s attempt to made by his co-appellants.21
build a hut was foiled by his helper, herein appellant On December 14, 2001, the trial court rendered its
Nelio.17 On cross-examination however, he admitted that decision, thus:
on March 12, 1986, he destroyed the first hut constructed
by Rafael on the subject tumana when the prosecution “In the light of the foregoing, the prosecution had
confronted him with evidence which showed that he was established the guilt of all the accused Carlito de Leon, Bien de
found guilty of Malicious Mischief Leon, Cornelio “aka” Nelio Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of arson, and they are
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 10 years
_______________
and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years and one
14 Id., at p. 14; Id., at p. 7. (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay jointly
15 Id. and severally the heirs of Rafael Mercado the sum of P3,000.00
16 TSN, August 22, 1995, pp. 4-5. representing the value of the burned hut.
17 Id., at p. 10. SO ORDERED.”22

622
_______________

18 Records, p. 54.
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
19 TSN, October 24, 1995, pp. 5-6.
People vs. De Leon 20 TSN, March 26, 1996, pp. 2-3; p. 5.
21 Id., at pp. 5-6.
in Criminal Case No. 1985 filed against him by Rafael 22 CA Rollo, p. 55.
before the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda.18
623
Nelio testified that on the day of the incident, the
appellants were in their respective homes and could not
have gone to the tumana to commit the crime as charged; VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 623
that the burnt parts depicted in the pictures presented by
People vs. De Leon
the prosecution were actually parts of tree trunks turned
to charcoal; and that the cogon and bamboo shown in the
pictures were materials brought by Rafael into the Appellants appealed before the Court of Appeals
landholding during the latter’s unsuccessful attempt to which rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming
build a hut on the tumana.19 with modification the decision of the court a quo, thus:
Bien also vehemently denied the charges against him
“WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby
and attributed the same to complainants’ desire to grab
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants
the tumana which rightfully belongs to his mother. He
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon, Cornelio Cabildo and Filoteo de People vs. De Leon
Leon are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs of private complainant Rafael Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of
Mercado the sum of Php2,000 as temperate damages and arson, it may be inferred from the acts of the accused.
Php20,000 as exemplary damages. Costs against accused- There is a presumption that one intends the natural
appellants. consequences of his act; and when it is shown that one
SO ORDERED.”23 has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is
not bound to produce further evidence of his wrongful
Hence, this appeal.
intent.25 If there is an eyewitness to the crime of arson,
Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 161324
he can give in detail the acts of the accused. When this is
amending the law on arson provides:
done the only substantial issue is the credibility of the
“Sec. 3. Other Cases of Arson.—The penalty of reclusion witness.26
temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court
burned is any of the following: of Appeals, found the testimonies of witnesses Aquilina
1. x x x and Leonisa worthy of credence, thus:
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
“The inconsistencies and contradictions presented in the
x x x x”
case at bench do not detract from the fact that Rafael’s house
Section 4 of the same law provides that if the crime of was intentionally burned by accused-appellants who were
arson was committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is planned positively identified by witnesses Aquilina and Leonisa. In the
or carried out by a group of three or more persons, the face of these positive declarations, accused-appellants’ puerile
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. attempt to discredit them crumples into dust.”27
Under the following provision, the elements of arson
It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual
are: (a) there is intentional burning; and, (b) what is
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect
The appellate court correctly found that the prosecution
and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any
was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence
clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
of the two essential elements of the offense.
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance that would have affected the result of the case.
_______________ Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and
23 Rollo, pp. 21-22.
observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the
24 March 7, 1979.
trial judge was in a better position to determine their
credibility.28
624
_______________
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

25 People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, 407 SCRA A. We hid ourselves behind the files (sic) of wood, sir.
367, 373, citing Curtis, A Treaty on the Law of Arson (1st ed., 1986), Q. How far is that file (sic) of wood from the house of your father?
Sec. 283, p. 303. A. More or less seven meters, sir.
26 Id., Sec. 287, p. 307. Q. Why did you, in the first place, go out of the house when you saw
27 Rollo, p. 16. them coming?
28 People v. Clidoro, G.R. No. 143004, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA A. Because we wanted to hide, sir.
149, 154. Q. Why were you apprehensive?
A. Because they were our adversary, sir. (Kalaban po namin sila.)
625
626

VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 625 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De Leon People vs. De Leon

x x x x
The testimony of Aquilina that she witnessed the
Q. Who were with you when you went out of the house?
burning of her father’s hut by appellants is positive and
A. Only my sister Leonisa because I already instructed my nephew to
categorical, thus:
go to our house when we noticed them coming and I instructed
ATTY. BAUTO: him to fetch my brothers, sir.
Q. Where were you when according to you they burned the house of Q. When you were already behind the files (sic) of wood what
your father? that house where you were residing? happened next?
A. I was in the tumana, sir. A. They surrounded our house and they lighted it up with match, sir.
Q. In the house or outside the house? (Pinaikutan po nila ang aming bahay at sinilaban.)
A. Outside of the house, sir. Q. Who first lighted a match for purposes of burning the house?
Q. Why were you outside of the house? A. Gaudencio Legaspi, sir.
A. When they were arriving or entering the premises of the house of Q. And what did the others do after Gaudencio Legaspi lighted a
my father or the tumana, our dog barked and we peeped thru the match?
window, sir. A. They also lighted their matches, sir.
Q. What did you see? COURT:
A. We saw that men are coming, sir. Q. You mean the five had their matches at the time?
Q. How many men are coming? A. Yes, sir.
A. Five men, sir. x x x x
Q. Were you able to recognize them when they were approaching the Q. What portion of the house was lighted first?
house? A. The cogon roofing of the hut, sir. That was the portion that could
A. Yes sir we recognize them. be easily burned.29
Q. What did you do?
A. We went outside of the house, sir.
 
Q. Where did you go?
Positive identification, where categorical and
consistent, without any showing of ill-motive on the part
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 580

of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the
alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.32 The corpus
convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence delicti has been satisfactorily proven in the instant case.
undeserving of weight in law. The appellants had not The appellate court correctly imposed the penalty in
shown that it was physically impossible for them to be its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua considering
present at the time and place of the crime.30 the presence of the special aggravating circumstance.
The crime was committed by a syndicate since it was
_______________ carried out by a group of three or more persons.
On the matter of damages, the appellate court
29 TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 7-9. likewise correctly awarded temperate damages in the
30 People v. Dela Pena, Jr., G.R. No. 183567, January 19, 2009, amount of P2,000.00. In view of the presence of the
576 SCRA 371. special aggravating circumstance, exemplary damages in
the amount of P20,000.00 is likewise appropriate.
627

_______________
VOL. 580, MARCH 4, 2009 627
31 Id.
People vs. De Leon
32 People v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 180448, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA
419.
Thus, we find no reason to disturb the trial court’s
reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 628
Findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility
of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses as they testify. Only the trial judge can observe People vs. De Leon
the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation,
flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The
full realization of an oath — all of which are useful aids Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
for an accurate determination of a witness’ honesty and 26390, finding appellants Carlito de Leon, Bien de Leon,
sincerity.31 Cornelio Cabildo and Filoteo de Leon guilty beyond
Proof of the corpus delicti is indispensable in the reasonable doubt of the crime of arson, sentencing them
prosecution of arson, as in all kinds of criminal offenses. to suffer the penalty reclusion perpetua and ordering
Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is the them to pay the heirs of private complainant Rafael
fact that a crime has actually been committed. In arson, Mercado P2,000.00 as temperate damages and
the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, is AFFIRMED.
bare occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a SO ORDERED.
house burned down and of its having been intentionally
caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b116e70d0d56c1e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15