327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can a person be convicted of arson with homicide when a
child perishes in a fire, despite the absence of intent to kill the child and
the primary objective being to burn down the house?
Case Title:
People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Dolendo y Fediles
alias "Etoy"
G.R. No. 223098, June 03, 2019
Facts of the Case:
Nestor Dolendo was charged with arson resulting in the death
of Leonardo Perocho Jr., a six-year-old boy, on September 18, 1996, in Barangay
Capsay, Masbate. Dolendo allegedly set fire to the house of Leonardo Perocho
Sr., where his son was sleeping, causing his death.
The prosecution presented witnesses, Deolina Perocho, wife
of Leonardo Sr., and her son Jessie Perocho. They testified that Dolendo set
fire to their house using dried coconut leaves while Deolina and her other
children escaped through a window, unknowingly leaving Leonardo Jr. inside.
Deolina recounted hearing Dolendo shouting, "Leonardo, I am already
here," while holding a gun. The fire caused the death of Leonardo Jr.,
whose body was severely burned.
The defense claimed alibi and denial, with Dolendo asserting
he was in Bulacan at the time. However, the trial court found Dolendo guilty of
arson with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, Dolendo raised various issues, including
inconsistent testimonies, the recantation of the Perocho witnesses, and that a
different judge rendered the verdict. Despite these, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the conviction, modifying it to simple arson, ruling that the intent
was to set fire, not to kill, and the death was incidental.
Dolendo appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking acquittal.
Primary Issue in the Supreme Court:
Did the Court of Appeals err in modifying the conviction
from arson with homicide to simple arson, and was the prosecution able to prove
Dolendo’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision,
ruling that Dolendo was guilty of simple arson, not arson with homicide. The
Court noted that under Presidential Decree 1613, the primary intent of
arson is burning property, and if death results, it is incidental to the act of
arson and not the primary objective. Thus, the crime committed was simple
arson, and the resulting death of Leonardo Jr. was absorbed by the arson.
Dispositive Portion:
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed
with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals. Nestor Dolendo y
Fediles alias "Etoy" was found guilty of simple arson and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to pay the following
amounts to the heirs of the victim:
- P75,000
as civil indemnity
- P75,000
as moral damages
- P75,000
as exemplary damages
- P50,000
as temperate damages
These amounts will earn 6% interest per annum from the
finality of this decision until fully paid.
Should the intent to kill be considered when a death
occurs as a result of an act of arson, even if the primary goal was property
destruction?
Important Doctrines:
- Arson
under PD 1613: Arson requires proof that a fire was intentionally set.
If death occurs due to arson, the death is incidental and absorbed by the
arson if the intent was not to kill.
- Recantation
of Witnesses: Courts view witness recantations with disfavor,
especially when done long after the event, as they can easily be
influenced by external factors such as intimidation or bribery.
- Denial
and Alibi: Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, particularly
when there is positive identification of the accused by credible
witnesses.
- Competency
of Judges: The fact that the judge who rendered the decision is not
the one who heard the trial does not invalidate the judgment, as long as
the decision is based on the transcripts and evidence presented.
Classification: Criminal Law
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb683-bba8-800a-81dc-4b584ff5dde1>
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)
🎓 Welcome, future lawyers
and legal professionals! In this content, we explore a compelling Supreme Court
decision that clarifies the boundary between arson with homicide and simple
arson—a topic essential for law students and bar takers.
Today’s featured jurisprudence is People of the
Philippines vs. Nestor Dolendo y Fediles alias "Etoy", G.R.
No. 223098, promulgated on June 3, 2019. This case centers on a
tragic incident where the accused set fire to a house, resulting in the death
of a six-year-old child. The trial court convicted him of arson with homicide,
but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled it was simple arson, since the intent
to kill was absent.
🧠 Should courts give
more weight to intent or to the deadly consequences of a criminal act? Let
us know your thoughts in the comments.
📌 NATURE OF THE CASE:
Criminal Law – Arson resulting in death
📌 CASE TITLE:
People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Dolendo y Fediles
alias "Etoy"
📌 G.R. No.: 223098
📌 Date of
Promulgation: June 3, 2019
📌 Parties:
- Plaintiff-Appellee:
People of the Philippines
- Accused-Appellant:
Nestor Dolendo y Fediles a.k.a. “Etoy”
📌 Brief Summary:
Dolendo set fire to the house of his enemy. Unbeknownst to
him, a six-year-old child was asleep inside and perished. The RTC convicted him
of arson with homicide, but both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court modified the conviction to simple arson, as the death was not the
primary intent but an incidental result.
🧾 10 IMPORTANT
DOCTRINES FROM THE CASE
- Doctrine
of Primary Intent in Arson:
If the primary intent is to burn property and death occurs, the crime is simple arson, and the death is absorbed. (See: Supreme Court ruling, p. 24) - Effect
of Death on Arson Penalty (PD 1613):
Under Sec. 5, PD 1613, when death results from arson, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. But this does not change the crime’s nature if there’s no intent to kill. - Alibi
as a Weak Defense:
The Court reiterated that alibi is the weakest defense, especially when not supported by clear evidence. (See: p. 22) - Recantation
of Testimony:
Recantations are viewed with extreme suspicion, especially if done long after conviction, as in this case (15 years later). (p. 21) - Judge
Who Did Not Hear the Trial Can Still Decide:
A judge may validly decide a case even if he did not personally hear the testimonies, relying on the records and TSNs. (See: Sandoval Shipyards case, cited p. 23) - Affidavits
of Recantation vs. Courtroom Testimony:
Affidavits of recantation cannot override sworn testimonies given under cross-examination. (See: p. 22) - Credibility
of Witnesses and Minor Inconsistencies:
Minor inconsistencies do not destroy the credibility of a witness, especially when the identification of the accused is consistent. (See: p. 20) - Positive
Identification Prevails Over Alibi:
Courts consistently rule that positive identification outweighs alibi, even if uncorroborated. (See: p. 21) - Damages
in Crimes Involving Death:
Civil indemnity: ₱75,000, Moral damages: ₱75,000, Exemplary damages: increased to ₱75,000, Temperate damages: ₱50,000. All subject to 6% interest from finality. (p. 25) - Classification
of the Crime Based on Motive:
Courts must determine whether the motive was to kill or to burn. If the latter, even if someone dies, it's still arson under PD 1613. (See: People vs. Malngan, cited on p. 24)
🧠 FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQs):
- Q:
Can someone be charged with homicide if they unintentionally kill during
arson?
A: No. If the intent was only to burn, and death resulted, the crime is simple arson—not homicide. - Q:
Does a recanted testimony automatically reverse a conviction?
A: No. The Court treats recantations with suspicion and generally favors in-court testimonies. - Q:
Can a judge render a decision even if he didn’t preside over the trial?
A: Yes, as long as he relies on the official records and evidence. - Q:
Is alibi ever enough to acquit an accused?
A: Only if it proves physical impossibility of being at the crime scene—otherwise, it’s a weak defense. - Q:
What law governs arson cases in the Philippines?
A: Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The New Arson Law)
📚 DISCLAIMER:
This video is for educational purposes only. It is
based on official Supreme Court sources but generated using premium AI.
While we aim for accuracy, we do not guarantee the content is infallible.
Always consult the full text and professional guidance when studying for the
Bar or practicing law.
📌 People of the Philippines
vs. Nestor Dolendo y Fediles alias "Etoy",
G.R. No. 223098, Promulgated: June 3, 2019
👉 Comment your
thoughts, save this post, and share it with your fellow baristas!
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb683-bba8-800a-81dc-4b584ff5dde1>
🎓 INTRODUCTION TO THE
QUIZZER
Welcome to this legal quizzer! This set of multiple-choice
questions is based on a landmark Criminal Law case decided by the
Philippine Supreme Court:
People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Dolendo y Fediles
alias “Etoy”,
G.R. No. 223098, promulgated on June 3, 2019.
Nature of the Case: Criminal Law – Arson involving
death
Parties:
- Plaintiff-Appellee:
People of the Philippines
- Accused-Appellant:
Nestor Dolendo y Fediles a.k.a. “Etoy”
Case Summary:
In this case, Dolendo was accused of setting fire to a house
where a child tragically died. The core issue before the Court was whether the
crime committed was arson with homicide or simple arson. The
trial court found him guilty of arson with homicide, but the Supreme Court
ultimately ruled that since Dolendo’s intent was to burn the house—not to
kill—the death that resulted was absorbed into simple arson. He was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages.
📌 Stay until the end
for the answer key! Let’s begin!
🔥 QUIZZER: HOTS - EASY
DIFFICULTY (10 Items)
- What
was the primary intent of Nestor Dolendo when he committed the act that
led to the child’s death?
A. To kill the child
B. To kill the father
C. To burn the house
D. To scare the neighbors - Which
of the following best describes the Supreme Court’s final classification
of the crime?
A. Arson with homicide
B. Homicide with arson
C. Simple arson
D. Murder - What
was the main reason the Court refused to treat the incident as homicide?
A. The fire was not proven
B. The accused surrendered voluntarily
C. The intent to kill was not established
D. The child was not identified - Why
did the Supreme Court disfavor the affidavits of recantation submitted
years later?
A. They were not notarized
B. They lacked legal jargon
C. They were done long after conviction and contradicted in-court testimony
D. They were submitted without a lawyer - Which
of the following is not a valid reason to downgrade a charge from
arson with homicide to simple arson?
A. Death was incidental
B. Fire was accidental
C. Intent to kill was absent
D. Fire was the primary goal - What
was the relationship between Deolina Perocho and Leonardo Jr., the child
who died in the fire?
A. Sister
B. Grandmother
C. Mother
D. Neighbor - What
key factor weakened Dolendo’s alibi according to the Court?
A. He presented a forged ID
B. He had no witnesses or documents to support it
C. He confessed to the crime
D. He changed his alibi multiple times - What
critical error did Dolendo claim about the judge who convicted him?
A. The judge was absent during the promulgation
B. The judge was biased
C. The judge who decided the case was not the one who heard the evidence
D. The judge was related to the victim - What
was the amount of moral damages awarded to the heirs of the victim?
A. ₱50,000
B. ₱100,000
C. ₱75,000
D. ₱25,000 - What
principle did the Court emphasize regarding testimony and affidavits?
A. Affidavits are more reliable than oral testimony
B. A notary public can override a court
C. Testimonies in open court under cross-examination are more credible than recantations
D. Written evidence outweighs all forms of testimony
No comments:
Post a Comment