People vs. Bersabal

Murder followed by arson to conceal it does not constitute a complex crime where neither offense was a necessary means for committing the other and the two did not arise from one single act. Separate penalties for murder and for arson punished under article 557 of the Penal Code were therefore imposed, with the aggravating circumstance of relationship compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.

Mateo Bersabal was the stepson of the deceased Pablo Cordoba. The prosecution charged killing attended by treachery and cruelty, followed by burning of the house where the killing occurred to conceal the crime.

On or about May 8, 1925, in the municipality of Pototan, Iloilo, Mateo Bersabal, provided with a bolo, struck Pablo Cordoba on the right side of the body. He afterwards cut off Cordoba's two arms and legs, as a result of which Cordoba died. In order to conceal the crime, Bersabal set fire to the house where the act had taken place, which was completely burnt, with the body consequently reduced to coal.

According to the prosecution, eyewitnesses saw Bersabal commit the act. The defense relied in part on the testimony of Laurencia Panes, mother of the defendant, who explained the death in a manner favorable to her son and sought to exempt him from liability by saying it occurred without his intervention.

Thereafter prosecution was commenced by information alleging intentional, malicious, criminal, treacherous and cruel killing followed by arson for concealment. After trial, the factual findings credited the prosecution eyewitnesses as having witnessed the act and found no sufficient ground to doubt their veracity. The trial judge, who saw, heard and observed Laurencia Panes while testifying, did not find her worthy of credit.

• Authorship and Identity: Appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that he committed the crime charged, contending the evidence did not establish his responsibility.
• Treachery and Performance of Acts: Appellant argued that the trial judge erred in holding that the commission was attended by treachery and that the acts alleged in the information were performed.
• Reasonable Doubt: Appellant argued that reasonable doubt existed and should have been found in his favor, requiring acquittal.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt to be responsible for the death of Pablo Cordoba and the arson alleged.
• Treachery: Whether the killing was attended by treachery.
• Complex Crime: Whether the murder and arson charged constituted a complex crime under Article 89 of the Penal Code.
• Circumstances and Penalties: Whether cruelty, relationship, and lack of instruction applied and what penalties should be imposed for murder and for arson.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. Guilt for both the death and the arson was found sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt on credited eyewitness testimony.
• Treachery: Yes. The evidence showed appellant treacherously assaulted Pablo Cordoba and caused his death, with no justification for the act.
• Complex Crime: No. Murder and arson were separate crimes because neither was a necessary means for the other nor did one single act constitute both, rendering Article 89 inapplicable.
• Circumstances and Penalties: Modified. Cruelty was rejected for lack of proof the victim was still alive during dismemberment, relationship as stepson was applied and compensated by lack of instruction, with separate penalties for murder and arson under Article 557, case No. 1.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No sufficient ground existed to doubt the veracity of the prosecution witnesses who affirmed having witnessed the act. Against their testimony stood only the natural interest of Laurencia Panes as mother of the defendant in explaining the death favorably to her son, whom the trial judge who observed her testimony found unworthy of credit. The criminal act was in no manner justifiable.
• Treachery: The evidence established a treacherous assault resulting in death, followed by burning of the house where the crime occurred. No merit was found in the assignments challenging treachery and performance of the alleged acts.
• Complex Crime: Although the information charged murder and arson together, the two could not be considered a complex crime. Arson committed afterward to conceal the killing was not a necessary means for committing murder, nor was the case one of a single act constituting two or more crimes. Article 89 of the Penal Code was therefore inapplicable and separate punishment was required.
• Circumstances and Penalties: Cruelty, understood as increasing the pain of the offended party, could not be taken into account because it was not proven that Cordoba was still alive when appellant continued to attack him and cut off his extremities, the prosecution evidence tending to show he was already lifeless. The aggravating circumstance of appellant being stepson of the deceased applied pursuant to Article 10, No. 1 of the Penal Code. That aggravating circumstance was compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction as considered by the trial court. For arson, the absence of allegation and proof of the value of the house or that it was inhabited did not render the act unpunishable; punishment fell under Article 557, case No. 1, in the medium degree, stated as 3 months and 11 days to 4 months and 20 days.

• Complex crime under Article 89 of the Penal Code — A complex crime exists only where one offense was a necessary means for committing the other, or where one single act constitutes two or more crimes. Applied here, murder followed by separate arson to conceal the killing was not complex because the burning was subsequent and distinct, not a necessary means nor the same act.
• Cruelty as aggravating circumstance — Cruelty requires proof that the offender deliberately increased the pain of the victim while the victim was still alive. It was rejected here because the evidence indicated Cordoba was already without life when his extremities were cut off.
• Relationship as aggravating circumstance — The fact of the offender being the stepson of the deceased constitutes the aggravating circumstance of relationship under Article 10, No. 1 of the Penal Code. It was applied against Bersabal as stepson of Cordoba.
• Compensation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances — An aggravating circumstance is compensated by a mitigating circumstance, leaving the penalty to be imposed in its medium degree. The aggravating circumstance of relationship was thus compensated by lack of instruction, fixing the arson penalty in the medium degree of the penalty under Article 557, case No. 1.
• Arson under Article 557, case No. 1 of the Penal Code — Failure to allege or prove the value of the burned house or that it was inhabited does not make the burning unpunishable; the act is punished under Article 557, case No. 1. The provision was applied to impose arresto mayor for the burning of the house.

• "We find in the record no sufficient ground for doubting the veracity of the witnesses for the prosecution, who affirmed having witnessed the act." — States the evidentiary basis for sustaining guilt, preferring disinterested eyewitnesses over the interested testimony of appellant's mother.
• "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." — Articulates the ratio for rejecting Article 89 and imposing separate penalties for murder and arson.
• "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." — Reproduces the charge that framed the issues of treachery, cruelty, homicide, and concealment by arson.

• Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated July 26, 1877 — Cited as authority for applying the aggravating circumstance of relationship under Article 10, No. 1 of the Penal Code to a stepson-offender.
• I Viada's Penal Code, question V under article 10, No. 1 — Cited as doctrinal support for treating the offender's status as stepson of the deceased as an aggravating circumstance of relationship.

• Article 89, Penal Code — Governs complex crimes; held inapplicable because murder and the subsequent arson were neither means-and-end offenses nor one single act constituting two crimes.
• Article 10, No. 1, Penal Code — Provides relationship as aggravating circumstance; applied because appellant was the stepson of the deceased.
• Article 557, case No. 1, Penal Code — Punishes the arson committed; applied despite non-allegation and non-proof of the house's value or inhabited character, yielding a medium-degree penalty of 3 months and 11 days to 4 months and 20 days.
• Article 55, Penal Code — Supplies the accessories for cadena perpetua imposed for murder.
• Article 61, Penal Code — Supplies the accessories for arresto mayor imposed for arson.

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