Practice question
An offender’s proved main aim is to burn an edifice; a resulting occupant death occurs in the fire, with the stated arson conditions established. A prosecutor demands a separate homicide solely because there was death. Which is best?
- Every fire-related death necessarily requires separate homicide.
- The objective can never matter.
- Death automatically erases arson.
- Apply the objective-based absorption framework rather than treat death alone as requiring a separate homicide.
- Only the building’s paint color matters.
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.