Practice question
A property is insured substantially above its actual value, a circumstance listed in Section 6. Evidence nevertheless leaves reasonable doubt about whether the accused intentionally set the fire. The insurer argues that the listed circumstance is conclusive proof requiring conviction. What is correct?
- Section 6 eliminates the presumption of innocence.
- The listed circumstance creates prima facie evidence, not an irrebuttable conclusion of guilt.
- Insurance always makes a fire accidental.
- Any doubt must be resolved against the accused.
- A criminal trial is unnecessary after an insurance claim.
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.