This appeal has been brought  to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Occidental Negros,  finding the appellant, Sia Lianting, guilty of the offense of arson  with homicide, and sentencing him to undergo cadera perpetua, with  the  accessories prescribed by  law,  to  indemnify (jointly and  severally with  Quieng Ket)  various persons, who had been damnified by the fire, in the following amounts, to Wit, Quieng Bungco  in the amount of P18,000,  Enrique Magalona in the amount of P12,000,  Rufo Yorac in the amount of P11,000,  Jose Sajo in the amount of P20,000,  Gregorio  Sajo  in the amount of P15,000,  and Wong Hang  On  & Co. in  the amount of P10,000,  and requiring him to pay one-half of the costs of prosecution.   The  coaccused, one Quieng Ket, (alias Tuñga), pleaded guilty in open court and was sentenced before the proof against the present appellant was submitted. Quieng Ket did not appeal.

It appears that  at about 1 o'clock a. m. on the night of November 19, 1925, a fire  of incendiary origin  broke out in the house of Quieng Bungco, located in the municipality of Saravia, Province of Occidental Negros.   The building was  so  quickly  consumed  that a son of Quieng Bungco, Tuñga by name, of the age  of 11 years, was unable to make his escape and was burned to death.  The fire also  spread to adjacent properties and  destroyed various buildings, of ownership and value as indicated in the indemnifying clause of the appealed decision.

 Quieng Bungco,  prior to  this fire, was a prosperous Chinese merchant  in  Saravia.  In times past  the  appellant, Lianting,  had  been associated in business  with  Quieng Bungco, but several years ago they severed relations, since which event Lianting has not prospered.  Owing to some misunderstanding  between  the two, mingled perhaps  with envy, Lianting entertained deep resentment against  Quieng Bungco  and on more than  one occasion had threatened to take vengeance upon him.  One Florentino  Javellana testified that Lianting offered  him  money to  burn Bungco's store.  Rufo Yorac, a councillor of the municipality, testified that shortly before the fire  the appellant had made threats in Yorac's  presence  against Bungco, with the result that Yorac's fears were aroused  and he began to observe the doings of Lianting with suspicion.  Among the Chinese subjects living in Saravia prior to the fire was Quieng Ket (alias Tunga),  an indolent and  worthless creature,  who lived  with  his  brother-in-law,  Alfredo Pedrajas.   Just a short while before  the fire, Yorac says he had seen Lianting in the company of Tuñga  and Pedrajas under suspicious circumstances, a fact which he called to the  attention of the police.   The proof shows that Lianting had  a devoted querida, named Isabel Jamilaren,  at whose  house Lianting was a frequent visitor.  Two or three days before the fire occurred Lianting called upon  Isabel and told  her that a can of gasoline would  be  brought  there by Pedrajas, and that later it would be taken from the place by Quieng Ket. The proof further shows that at about that time Pedrajas was  sent  to the  tienda of Lianting  upon an  errand for Quieng Ket.  Upon the arrival  of Pedrajas at the  store of Lianting, the latter gave Pedrajas  the sum of P5 and told him to go to the store  of  Yap Tico and purchase a can of gasoline to be taken by him to the house of Isabel Jamilaren.  This errand was performed, the  gasoline being placed on the upper porch (azotea) of Isabel's  house.  On the day  preceding the fire, Lianting again called upon Isabel in  order to  ascertain  whether the can  of  gasoline had been taken there by Pedrajas according to instructions. Finding it there Lianting told the  woman that  Quieng Ket would call for it.  Accordingly on  the night  of  the  fire Quieng  Ket  came  and removed the gasoline.  Although Isabel did not see Quieng Ket when he came on this mission, she recognized his voice.   After the fire had been set, Quieng Ket  carried the empty can with him from the scene of action, and as  he ran away he was seen by a policeman who recovered the empty can.

After the fire occurred Rufo Yorac, remembering Lianting's threats against Bungco, came to the conclusion that Lianting was probably the author  or instigator of the fire. Yorac accordingly went to Lianting's place of business and charged him with the  offense,  with  the result  that a personal encounter between the two resulted.  After Lianting had been  arrested and while Quieng Ket was yet at large, Lianting, being in jail,  spoke to a policeman, named Gabriel Arcangel, and proposed to pay him  a reward in money if he would  convey  to Pedrajas a message to the effect that Pedrajas should inform Quieng Ket to get away.

When Quieng Ket was  arrested  he made a confession in which he told precisely how he had  perpetrated the crime at the instigation of Lianting and upon promise of a reward by the  latter, which he said had not been  paid.  After Quieng  Ket had been convicted upon his separate plea of guilty, the attorney for the prosecution placed him on the stand as a witness against Sia Lianting.  His testimony, however, was disappointing to the prosecution as, though still admitting his own guilt, he said that the crime had been committed on his own initiative,  and without his being moved thereto by anyone.

The confession of Quieng Ket is of course not admissible in evidence against the appellant, but it is proper to say that Quieng  Ket's story, as told upon the witness  stand, with respect  to the manner in which he got the P5 to purchase the gasoline, is a manifest fabrication,  as the trial judge declared.

Upon the  facts  above stated, we have no hesitancy in saying that the guilt of the appellant as joint principal and coauthor by  induction of  this crime is fully  established. We concede full credence to the testimony of Isabel Jamilaren, given under circumstances extremely trying to her, since she  was speaking the words that would  consign to prison a man who was the father of  her  children and to whom she was evidently devoted.  The conduct of Lianting in procuring and placing the gasoline  where it would be accessible to  his agent is incompatible with the possibility of his  innocence.  His  anxiety  to get Quieng Ket out of the community before he should be arrested, as shown by the message which  Lianting attempted to  send  through Gabriel  Arcangel, indicates  his guilty conscience.  The enmity entertained by Lianting against Bungco supplies the necessary motive to  the crime.

It results  that the lower court committed no error in finding  the appellant guilty; but as to the qualification of the offense, we are of the opinion that the judgment entered by the lower court requires modification.

The offense of arson committed in this case would have been punishable under article 549 of the Penal Code, if all of the ingredients  of the offense there defined had been stated in the information.   The information, however, contains  no allegation that at the time  the fire was set the accused knew it to be occupied by one or  more persons. Knowledge of this fact on the part of the incendiary is a qualificative element in the offense  defined in article 549, and without  an  allegation  of  such  fact, conviction under said  article cannot be  sustained (People vs. Macalma, 44 Phil., 170).   The offense of arson charged in the information must therefore be penalized, in view of  the amount of damage done, under subsection 2 of article 550 of the Penal Code.  But the proof shows that the same act  of arson resulted in homicide, as one of the  occupants of  Bungco's house was burned to death.  This homicide is  sufficiently charged in the information and the situation  resulting from the concurrence of the two offenses must be dealt with under article 89- of the Penal Code, which prescribes that, in a  combination of two or more crimes, when one  offense is a  necessary means for committing the other, only the penalty for the more serious crime  shall be imposed, the same  to be applied in its maximum degree.   In  accordance with this  provision, the appellant can only be sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years, cadena temporal, with the accessories prescribed  in article 56  of the  Penal Code,

The appealed  judgment must therefore be modified by substituting twenty years,  cadena temporal, with accessories for the cadena perpetua imposed by the lower court.

With  respect  to the obligation of the appellant to indemnify the injured  parties, the judgment  will be  affirmed, with costs,  So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.