In People v. Macabando, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between simple and destructive arson, emphasizing the degree of perversity and viciousness behind the act. While the accused was initially convicted of destructive arson, the Court modified the conviction to simple arson, highlighting that the intent was merely to burn his own house, even though the fire spread to neighboring properties. This decision underscores the importance of proving malicious intent to destroy specific high-value structures to secure a conviction for destructive arson, distinguishing it from the lesser crime of simple arson, which carries a lighter penalty.

From Fit of Rage to Spreading Flames: When Does Arson Become ‘Destructive’?

Alamada Macabando was initially found guilty of destructive arson by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The prosecution presented evidence that Macabando, in a fit of anger, threatened to burn his house. Later that day, a fire erupted in his residence, which then spread to neighboring houses. Witnesses testified that Macabando prevented them from putting out the fire, even firing shots in the air and threatening to kill anyone who interfered. Based on this circumstantial evidence, the lower courts concluded that Macabando was guilty of destructive arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.

The Supreme Court, however, took a closer look at the nature of the crime. The central question was whether Macabando’s actions constituted destructive arson, which carries a heavier penalty, or simple arson, which is punished less severely. The Court emphasized that the key difference lies in the intent and the degree of perversity or viciousness of the act. To understand the nuances, it’s crucial to examine the specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code and related laws.

The original charge against Macabando stemmed from Article 320 of the RPC, as amended, defining destructive arson. This article lists specific types of properties, the burning of which constitutes destructive arson. These include buildings or edifices, buildings devoted to public use, trains, ships, factories serving public utilities, and buildings burned to conceal other crimes. The penalty for destructive arson ranges from reclusion perpetua to death.

However, the Court also considered Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1613, which governs simple arson. Section 3 of this law lists properties, the burning of which constitutes simple arson. Pertinently, it includes “any inhabited house or dwelling.” The penalty for simple arson is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, a less severe range than that for destructive arson.

The Court pointed out that circumstantial evidence played a crucial role in the case. While no one directly saw Macabando setting the fire, the combination of circumstances painted a compelling picture. These circumstances included Macabando’s violent behavior earlier in the day, his threat to burn his house, the fire starting in his room, his preventing others from putting out the fire, and his carrying a traveling bag during the incident. The Court stated:

…the combination of all the circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

Despite this strong circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court distinguished between the two types of arson based on the intent and the nature of the property burned. The Court noted that Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of specific structures with significant implications, while P.D. No. 1613 covers the malicious burning of other structures, regardless of size. The Court cited Buebos v. People, illuminating the difference between the offenses:

The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender…Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and national security implications than Destructive Arson.

Applying these principles to Macabando’s case, the Court determined that his actions, while reprehensible, constituted simple arson rather than destructive arson. The evidence indicated that he intended to burn his own house, and the fire spread to neighboring houses. This did not rise to the level of heinousness or perversity required for a conviction of destructive arson. The court highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove that Macabando targeted any of the specific properties listed in Article 320 of the RPC. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction to simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613.

With the modification of the crime, the Court also adjusted the penalty. For simple arson, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Macabando to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Regarding damages, the Court upheld the lower courts’ decision not to award actual damages. The Court emphasized that to recover actual damages, the claimant must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable. In this case, the records lacked sufficient evidence to establish a concrete basis for awarding actual damages.

FAQs

What is the difference between simple and destructive arson?	Destructive arson involves the malicious burning of specific high-value structures listed in Article 320 of the RPC, carrying a heavier penalty. Simple arson, governed by P.D. No. 1613, involves burning other structures, including inhabited houses, and carries a lighter penalty. The key difference lies in the intent and the degree of perversity.
What are the key elements of simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613?	The elements are: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Both elements must be proven to secure a conviction for simple arson.
What is the penalty for simple arson?	The penalty for simple arson under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1613 is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The specific sentence depends on the circumstances of the case and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
What role did circumstantial evidence play in this case?	Circumstantial evidence was crucial because no one directly witnessed Macabando setting the fire. The Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including his threats, behavior, and actions during the fire, to conclude that he intentionally set the fire.
Why was Macabando’s conviction modified from destructive to simple arson?	The Court modified the conviction because the prosecution failed to prove that Macabando intended to burn any of the specific high-value structures listed in Article 320 of the RPC. His intent was merely to burn his own house, even though the fire spread to neighboring properties.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and how was it applied in this case?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, rather than a fixed sentence. In this case, the Court applied the law to determine Macabando’s sentence for simple arson, considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
What must be proven to recover actual damages in an arson case?	To recover actual damages, the claimant must prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable. Vague or unsubstantiated claims are insufficient.
What was the significance of Macabando preventing others from putting out the fire?	The Court considered this behavior unnatural and suspicious. It suggested that Macabando had something to hide and that he was deliberately preventing the fire from being extinguished.

The People v. Macabando case serves as a vital reminder of the distinctions between simple and destructive arson under Philippine law. It emphasizes that the degree of intent and the nature of the property burned are critical factors in determining the appropriate charge and penalty. This ruling clarifies the application of arson laws, ensuring that individuals are charged and penalized appropriately based on the specific circumstances of their actions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013