Practice question
Three adults plan a proved PD1613 simple arson together, but only two execute the agreed burning. The syndicate circumstance is properly alleged and all participation is established. Does the third planner’s absence from ignition alone defeat the statutory definition?
- No; planning by the qualifying group is expressly included
- Yes, all three must physically light the same match
- Yes, planning is legally irrelevant
- Yes, only the person holding fuel may count
- The number of flames replaces the group size
Legal references
- PD1613 Sections4 and8, special circumstances and innocent-owner confiscation exception, simple-arson setting stipulated: https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1979/pd_1613_1979.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.