By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
A horrible New Year’s celebration
On New Year’s Eve 2008, Richard Pugal arrived at FQ Grocery Store on a motorcycle with Benjieboy Vicente. The store, owned by the Que family, was licensed to sell fireworks. Benjieboy entered the store while Pugal remained outside holding a “mother rocket” firework. Pugal lit the firework and pointed it towards a display of fireworks in front of the store. The firework ignited the store’s display, causing an explosion and fire that engulfed the wooden building. Florencio Que, the father of the store owners, died in the fire. Pugal attempted to flee but was apprehended.
The main issue raised in this case is: Was the intent to commit the crime of destructive arson proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision finding Richard Pugal guilty of destructive arson.
The Court found that Pugal’s actions demonstrated intent. He deliberately lit the firework and aimed it towards the fireworks display. A reasonable person would understand the danger of fireworks, especially near a collection of flammable materials.
A “no testing no smoking” sign was posted, indicating the area was a fire hazard. Pugal attempted to escape instead of helping to extinguish the fire.
The Court rejected Pugal’s arguments that the fire was accidental and that he lacked the intent to cause such grave harm. His actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life and property. The burning of the store was a foreseeable consequence of his actions.
The court found no “notable and evident disproportion” between his actions and the resulting consequences.
Therefore, the Court found the evidence sufficient to establish Pugal’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime of destructive arson. (People v. Pugal y Austria, G.R. No. 229103, (15 March 2021))