Practice question
A fire destroys a dwelling, but reliable evidence establishes an accidental origin and no intentional setting of fire by the accused. May conviction for the charged intentional simple arson rest on destruction alone?
- Yes, every fire conclusively proves arson.
- No; intentional burning and the accused's criminal participation must be proved.
- Yes, if the repair estimate is high.
- Yes, if the accused owned matches for ordinary use.
- No, because property destruction is never legally relevant.
Legal references
- PD 1613, Sections 1, 3–7, simple arson, read with later destructive-arson law and RA 9346: https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1979/pd_1613_1979.html
- People v Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, main decision, simple and destructive arson classification (not obsolete death penalties): https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48902
- RA 9346, Sections 1–4, death-penalty prohibition, substitute penalties and clemency: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9346_2006.html
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 Sections 8–9, allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.