Practice question
An offender first completes a separately established killing, then burns the building to hide evidence. He invokes automatic absorption merely because both happened at one address. Which is sound?
- One address always means one crime.
- Every later fire erases every earlier offense.
- The offender may choose any classification without facts.
- The concealment purpose is always irrelevant.
- The common location does not defeat the separate-offense analysis for the stated concealment sequence.
Legal references
- People v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006, en banc main decision, arson and resulting death: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/43138
- People v. Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, main decision, reaffirming objective-based arson/killing classification: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/nov2017/gr_203121_2017.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.