590 Phil.

157

[ G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIE

VILLACORTA GIL (A. K. A. JULIE VILLASORCA GIL), ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Before the Court for automatic review is the Decision[1] dated February 10, 2006
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. HC CR No. 00253 which affirmed in toto
the Decision[2] dated January 23, 2003 of Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of the City of Manila, convicting accused-appellant Julie V. Gil of the crime
of Destructive Arson with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 320 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and ordering her to pay the heirs of the deceased victim
Rodolfo Cabrera the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil
indemnity and Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Pesos (P18,950.00) Pesos
for funeral and burial expenses. The accused-appellant and the plaintiff-appellee
adopted their respective briefs before the CA and both manifested to this Court
that they no longer intend to file any supplemental brief.[3]

The Information charging accused-appellant reads:

That on or about March 1, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the

said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and
deliberately set fire on a residential house located at No. 603 Sulucan
St., Sampaloc, in said city, owned by ANGGE ARGUELLES, by then and
there pouring kerosene on a mattress placed in a room of said house
then occupied by the said accused and ignited it with a lighter,
knowing it to be occupied by one or more persons, thereby causing as
a consequence thereof, damage to the said house and adjacent
houses in the amount of more or less P2,000,000.00, to the damage
and prejudice of said owners in the aforesaid amount of
P2,000,000.00, Philippine Currency; that on the occasion and by
reason of said fire, one RODOLFO CABRERA, a resident/occupant of
 said house sustained burn injuries which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death.

Contrary to law.

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment[4]. The pre-trial

conference followed and the RTC issued a pre-trial order[5] which contained the
stipulation of facts and issue of the parties as follows:

In the pre-trial today, the parties stipulated that the residential house
located at No. 603 Sulucan Street, Sampaloc, Manila, owned by Angge
Arguelles was burned and that the same resulted into the burning of
other adjacent houses causing damage in the amount of more or less
Two Million (P2,000,000.00) and the death of a certain Rodolfo
Cabrera.

The issue to be resolved is whether the accused is the arsonist and /

or responsible for the said fire.

After trial, the RTC rendered its assailed decision convicting the accused-
appellant of the crime charged. According to the RTC, the prosecution had
presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, coupled with the written confession
of the accused-appellant, to sustain her conviction of the crime charged. The
RTC admitted the oral and written confessions of the accused-appellant and
found the prosecution witnesses more credible than the accused-appellant.

The motion for reconsideration or new trial of the accused-appellant was denied
in the Order[6] dated April 3, 2003 of the RTC.

This case was directly elevated to this Court for mandatory review. In a Minute
Resolution[7] dated January 11, 2005, we referred this case to the CA for proper
disposition conformably with the decision rendered in People v. Mateo.[8] On
review, the CA rejected the assignments of error raised by the accused-appellant
and affirmed her conviction of the crime charged.

A summary of the evidence adduced by the prosecution are quoted from the
assailed decision of the CA as follows:

William Lim, a Kagawad of Barangay 395, Zone 41 of the 4th

District, Sampaloc, Manila, testified that on March 1, 1998 while
eating at their store located at 843 Quezon Boulevard, his former
typist in the barangay, Jonah, called him to tell that a woman wanted
to surrender to a barangay official. Jonah brought him to the woman
who introduced herself as Julie Gil. The latter appeared to be a
lesbian, drunk and very confused. She felt bothered by her conscience
and admitted that she burned her residence. He called up precinct 4
to report the incident, and was told that there was indeed a fire that
took place in the area. He requested for a mobile and the accused was
brought to fire station No. 4 where she forcibly took the pen from a
policeman in order for her to put in writing the actual incident. At first,
Lim was hesitant thinking that her testimony might not be admissible
in court, but since the accused was very insistent, she was allowed to
reduce the incident in writing.

Ronnie Gallardo declared that he was present during the incident.

He and his mother occupied the room next to that of the accused. On
March 1, 1998 at around 12:30 p.m. while lying in bed inside their
room, he heard a thud ("kalabog") coming from the room of the
accused. He also heard the accused crying. He went out of his room
and when he found the accused' door open, he peeped through the
door where he noticed the latter standing. When she saw him, the
accused pointed to him the fire on her folding bed made of plastic
with foam. At that time the fire was getting bigger. She then told him
"xxx pabayaan mo na iyan. Damay-damay na tayo. At hinatak na niya
ako." They went out but he tried to get back to get their belongings.
He, however, failed to get anything from their room because the
entire house as well as the other adjacent houses was already
burning. With the help of their neighbors, they tried to put off the fire
which lasted for about two (2) hours, while the accused remained
standing, watching it. Since the incident he never saw the accused
until the latter appeared in court.

Rodolfo Lorenzo, a Kagawad of Barangay 457, Zone 45 which

covered the area of Sulucan Street, Sampaloc, Manila, met the
accused two (2) days before the incident at around 9:00 p.m.
According to him, somebody called for his help, informing that the
accused was making trouble. He immediately responded by
proceeding to the house of the accused at corner Sulucan and
Earnshaw Streets, Sampaloc where he saw the accused in front of her
house. She was drunk, and there were two (2) broken bottles of gin
scattered along Earnshaw Street. He was told by the accused' mother
that the accused broke the bottles because she had problems with her
live-in partner. He first swept the pieces of broken bottles before
approaching the accused and her mother, Aling Lita. The accused told
him that her live-in partner, Trining, wrote her two (2) break-up
letters, which obviously she could not accept. He told the accused to
stay calm, but she refused to be pacified. She even told him "xxx
manggugulo ako at manununog." He talked to the accused' mother
who confirmed to him that she had problems with her live-in partner.
Again, the accused told him "manununog daw po siya at damay-
damay na lang daw po lahat ng mga kapitbahay niya." To appease, he
told her: "Julie, baka hindi mo alam ang gagawin mo
magpakahinahon ka. Isipin mo muna ng makasampung beses bago
mo gawin ang iniisip mo, hindi basta bastang kaso iyan." The accused
just ignored him. He noticed, however, that her eyes were red and she
was gnashing her teeth. He then thought she was on drugs. The
following day at around 11:00 a.m., Rodolfo chanced upon her near
the basketball court. He tried to talk to her and convinced her not to
do anything bad, but again she ignored him. The next day, March 1,
1998 at around noon time, while talking with a neighbor in the
basketball court, his attention was called on the alleged fire that broke
near the squatter's area. He proceeded to the place and saw Aling Lita
outside her house. He immediately looked for the accused whom he
saw walking very fast along Earnshaw Street going towards Recto or
España. He tried to chase her, but she was very fast. It would seem
he was out of his mind as she was even smiling when she saw the
fire. She told, "xxx damay-damay na tayo diyan, huwag ninyo ng
patayin ang sunog." When he felt that he could no longer chase her,
he stopped chasing her and instead helped put off the fire as he was
concerned with his constituents.

Unfortunately, Rodolfo did not give any statement before the police
after the incident.

It was SFO1 Redentor Alumno who investigated the fire incident.

Upon receipt of the alarm, his team proceeded to the crime scene and
conducted on the spot investigation. He talked to witnesses
particularly Amparo Cabrera and Ronnie Gallardo, who gave their
respective statements on the incident. At around 1:10 p.m. of the
same day, March 1, 1998, Barangay Kagawad William Lim turned-over
to their office the accused informing them that the latter voluntarily
surrendered to him (Lim). A letter written by the accused was also
handed to him. After conducting an investigation, SFO1 prepared a
Crime Report in connection with the incident. On March 2, 1998, the
accused was subjected to inquest.
 SFO1 Alumno estimated the damage caused by the fire to be P2
Million Pesos, more or less, as shown by the pictures he took after the
incident. There were more or less 15 to 20 houses destroyed, one (1)
man by the name of Rodolfo Cabrera died, and a certain Marites
Cabrera was injured.

Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Freyra of the Central Police District Crime

Laboratory examined the cadaver of victim Rodolfo E. Cabrera on April
8, 1998 at around 1000H upon request of the Office of the Barangay
Chairman of Barangay 411, Zone 42. Her examination shows that the
cause of the victim's death was third degree burn of his entire body.

As a result of the untimely demise of victim Rodolfo Cabrera, his

surviving family suffered damages. According to his surviving spouse,
Anacleta Cabrera, during the wake of her husband, she spent
P3,175.00 for food. She also incurred expenses for his funeral and
burial amounting to P7,700.00 and P5,475.00, respectively. She also
paid P2,600 for the burial lot.

At the time of his death, Rodolfo Cabrera was living in the same house
with his common-law wife, Amparo Cabrera, for almost five (5)
years.

The written statement[9] executed by the accused-appellant admitting

responsibility for conflagration before Kagawad William Lim reads:

Volontary Statement of Julie Gil y Villacorta, 24 years old single, stell

bed worker, 1st year high scool 603 Sulucan St., Sampaloc, Manila,
given to Kagawad William Lim y Bedor, of legal age, Barangay 395
Zone 41, Sampaloc, Manila, this 1 March 1998 on or about 1:10 P.M.

Ako po ay si Julie V. Gil ay bolontaryong sumuko kay Kagawad William

Lim sa salang Panununog sa inuupahang bahay ko sa No. 603 Sulucan
St., Sampaloc, kaninang mga bandang 12:00 ng tanghali. Sinunog ko
po ang tinitirhan ko dahil sa Pambabastos sa akin ng mga taong
kamaganak ng live in partner ko na si Trinidad Domingo 25 y old kaya
ang ginawa ko ay kinuha ko ang kalan di bomba at pagkatapos
ibinuhos ko and laman kerosene gas sa kutson perso bago ko
sinindihan bumaba muna ako, at saka ko sila sinabihan na lumabas na
sila lahat sa iskinita dahil susunogin ko na at damay damay na tayo at
saka ako uli umakyat upang sindihan ang lighter at saka uli ako
 bumaba at saka umalis, napadpad ako sa isang barangay at kusang
sumuko sa Kagawad William Lim. Nakokonsensya ako kaya sinabi ko
sa kanya ang aking nagawang kasalanan. Wala ako sa sarili kong
pagiisip ng sinunog ko ang aking tinitirhan dahil nakagamit po ako ng
shabo.

(Sgd.)
Julie Gil

CERTIFICATION

Ang salaysay na ito ay kusang isinalaysay sa akin ng isang babaeng

nangangalang Julie V. Gil at ito ay aking pipirmahan upang sa gayon
ay magamit sa kung anumang usapin.

Kagawad
(Sgd.) William B. Lim
March 1, 1998

On the other hand, the accused-appellant relied on her lone testimony in her
defense. While she admitted the authenticity of her above-quoted written
confession, she denied on the witness stand that she voluntarily wrote this
confession. The accused-appellant related her version of the fire incident which
is quoted hereunder from the assailed decision of the CA:

According to [accused-appellant], the fire resulted from her defective

gas stove which suddenly caught fire while she was boiling water.
When the stove caught fire, she got flustered and poured water on the
stove. To her surprise, the fire got bigger. Ronnie, who was also
renting a room next to her with his mother, came and they helped
each other to put off the fire. When their efforts seemed unsuccessful,
she told Ronnie: "xxx hindi na natin kayang patayin ang apoy, baba
na lang po kami para humingi ng tulong". When they went out, people
were already helping each other to contain the fire. She then left the
place passing through an alley.

The accused averred that a day prior to the incident she was very
tired. She reported for work as a spring bed maker as early as 6:00
a.m. and went home 2:00 a.m. the following day, March 1, 1998.
Again, she woke up at 6:00 a.m. on the same day to report for work.

According to the accused, it was William Lim who took custody of him
 for reasons unknown to her. Thereafter, they gave her a paper with
something written on it and they instructed her to copy the same in
another paper. Confused, she did what was told of her because they
told her that it would be good for her.

The accused-appellant[10] assails her conviction on the following grounds:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
ARSON WITH HOMICIDE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING AS EVIDENCE

THE ALLEGED EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant contends that the circumstantial evidence of the

prosecution failed to produce the required quantum of proof to hold her
criminally liable for the charge. She explained that prosecution witness Ronnie
Gallardo saw her mattress already on fire but never saw her deliberately burn
her mattress. Ronnie Gallardo neither saw nor identified any overt act which
would suggest that the accused-appellant intentionally put her mattress on fire.
The accused-appellant claimed that Ronnie Gallardo might have gotten anxious
after he saw the raging fire and misunderstood her remark "pabayaan mo na
yan, damay-damay na tayo" when what she meant to say after all was
"pabayaan mo na yan, madadamay tayo." She would not have pulled out Ronnie
Gallardo from the burning house had her intention been to cause injury to
others. The accused-appellant also disputed the trial court's reliance on the
testimony of Kagawad Rodolfo Lorenzo that she intentionally burned her
residential house because of personal problems. She rhetorically questioned the
credibility of the said prosecution witness when, as a person in authority, he
failed to report to the police his supposed knowledge of what the accused-
appellant was planning to do two days prior to the fire that occurred in their
neighborhood.

The accused-appellant also argues that her written confession is inadmissible in

evidence. She claims that she was not assisted by counsel at the time she
executed the same; and that she was merely led to believe, without apprising
her of its legal significance, that it would help her.
We find the arguments adduced by the accused-appellant untenable.

This Court agrees with the plaintiff-appellee[11] that the RTC has passed upon
enough circumstantial evidence to hold the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The plaintiff-appellee correctly cites the
ruling in People v. Gallarde,[12] which distinguished the two types of positive
identification of a perpetrator of a crime and discussed their legal importance,
thus:

Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not

per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very act of commission of
the crime. There are two types of positive identification. A
witness may identify a suspect or accused in a criminal case as
the perpetrator of the crime as an eyewitness to the very act
of the commission of the crime. This constitutes direct
evidence. There may, however, be instances where, although a
witness may not have actually seen the very act of commission
of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect
or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as for instance when
the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the
victim immediately before and right after the commission of
the crime. This is the second type of positive identification,
which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when
taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting an
unbroken chain, leads to the only fair and reasonable
conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime
to the exclusion of all others. If the actual eyewitness are the only
ones allowed to possibly positively identify a suspect or accused to the
exclusion of others, then nobody can ever be convicted unless there is
an eyewitness, because it is basic and elementary that there can be
no conviction until and unless an accused is positively identified. Such
a proposition is absolutely absurd, because it is settled that direct
evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix
wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. If
resort to circumstantial evidence would not be allowed to
prove identity of the accused on the absence of direct
evidence, then felons would go free and the community would
be denied proper protection. [Emphasis supplied]

The circumstantial evidence of the prosecution consisted of the following: the

testimony of Kagawad Rodolfo Lorenzo about the behavior and remarks of the
accused-appellant at the time she caused a public disturbance and threatened to
cause chaos and arson[13] and to drag her neighbors into this turmoil,[14] two
days prior to the conflagration; the testimony of Ronnie Gallardo that, when he
saw the burning mattress in the room of the accused-appellant, the latter said to
him in the vernacular: "Pabayaan mo na iyan. Damay-damay na tayo.";[15] the
testimony of Kagawad Rodolfo Lorenzo that, at the time he tried to chase the
accused-appellant during the fire incident, he again heard her utter a nonchalant
remark: "Damay-damay na tayo diyan, huwag ninyo nang patayin ang sunog.";
[16] and the testimony of Kagawad William Lim that the accused-appellant

approached and admitted to him immediately after the incident that she was the
person responsible for the conflagration.[17] The aforementioned circumstantial
evidence would constitute positive identification of the accused-appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime charged, to the exclusion of others. She was the person
who had the motive to commit the crime, and the series of events following her
threat to cause chaos and arson in her neighborhood -- the fire that started in
her room, and her actuations and remarks during, as well as immediately before
and after the fire-- sufficiently points to the accused-appellant as the author of
the said crime.

We are not persuaded by the bare and uncorroborated allegation of the accused-
appellant that the fire was accidental, and that she was arrested and forced by
Kagawad William Lim to copy the contents of her written confession from a piece
of paper handed to her by the said barangay official.

To quote a well-entrenched legal precept, the "factual findings of the trial court,
its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their
probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless it
ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and
circumstances of substance, which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the
case" and the said trial court "is in the best position to ascertain and measure
the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through its actual observation of the
witnesses' manner of testifying, demeanor and behavior while in the witness
box."[18]

In this case, the trial court found that the prosecution witnesses testified
consistently and truthfully. The chain of events before, during, and after the fire
- - as narrated by the prosecution witnesses - - established beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused-appellant committed the acts alleged in the information,
which constituted the crime of arson with homicide. The accused-appellant failed
to show any "misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and
circumstances of substance" that could alter the outcome of the case. She also
did not show any credible motive why the prosecution witnesses testified against
her. Thus, this Court finds conclusive the findings and observation of the trial
court that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were candid and
trustworthy, and that the testimony of the accused-appellant was not impressed
with candor and honesty.

Regarding her extrajudicial confession, the plaintiff-appellee correctly adverted

to the ruling in People v. Andan[19] as to the admissibility of the verbal
confession made by the accused-appellant, which she made not only to Kagawad
William Lim but also to Kagawad Rodolfo Lorenzo while the fire was in progress.
Moreover, as correctly held by the CA, even if the written extra-judicial
confession is disregarded, the evidence presented by the prosecution is more
than sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated February 10, 2006 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC CR No. 00253 affirming the Decision dated
January 23, 2003 of Branch 41 of the RTC of Manila is hereby AFFIRMED. No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio

Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, and Brion,
JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on leave.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose C.

Mendoza and Arturo G. Tayag concurring. Rollo, pp. 3-18.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 23- 34.

[3] Rollo, pp. 22, 23 and 25-26.

[4] Records, p. 13.

[5] Id. at p. 24.

[6] Id. at pp. 36-38.

[7] CA rollo, p. 128.

[8] G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

[9] Id. at pp. 231-232.

[10] CA rollo, pp. 55-71.

[11] Id. at pp. 105-124.

[12] G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 835, 849.

[13] Records, TSN dated January 25, 2000, p. 9.

[14] Id. at p. 10.

[15] Records, TSN dated July 28, 1999, p. 9.

[16] Records, TSN dated January 25, 2000, p. 14.

[17] Records, TSN dated June 2, 1999, pp. 9-16.

[18] People v. Alabado, G.R. No. 176267, September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 189,

206-207.

[19] G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997, 269 SCRA 95, 109-110.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: April 03, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library