Practice question
An Information and proof establish intentional burning of an ordinary inhabited house, with no Article 320 qualifying facts. The prosecutor says the word building can describe a house, so every such burning necessarily becomes destructive arson. Under Soriano, which is correct?
- Every dwelling is necessarily destructive arson.
- The statutory classification must follow the charged and proved kind and circumstances of the property; the stated case may fall under PD 1613 Section 3(2).
- Only the total peso loss decides classification.
- Any prosecutor's label overrides the factual allegations.
- PD 1613 was repealed in its entirety by the later destructive-arson law.
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.