Arson Case Digests

People vs Dolendo
G.R. No. 223098 | June 03, 2019
Lazaro-Javier, J.
Topic: Anti-Arson Law
Facts:
On September 18, 1996 at about 4 PM in the afternoon in Sitio Capatagan, Brgy.

Capsay, Aroroy, Masbate, Deolina Perocho, wife of Leonardo Sr., and her four (4)
children namely: Ivy, Isalyn, Janice, and Leonardo Jr. were eating inside the house
when she saw Dolendo with a gun and was shouting and looking for her husband.
Leonardo Sr. and the appellant had a previous altercation, and the husband has been
avoiding Dolendo.
Afterwards, Deolina saw the appellant gathered coconut leaves and set their
porch on fire. On panic, the complainant, with her three (3) daughters jumped out from
the window at the back of their house and hid in a grassy area. After some time, they
heard Leonardo Jr. crying and realized that she totally forgotten about him as Leonardo
Jr. was asleep when the fire began. By the time they went out of their hiding place, the
house had been completely burned down and Leonardo Jr. had died.
The Regional Trial Court of Masbate found the appellant guilty of arson with
homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision with modification and sentenced
him of the crime simple arson. Dolendo now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and
prays anew for his acquittal, hence this petition.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of simple arson instead of arson with
homicide
Ruling:
Yes, the accused Dolendo is guilty of simple arson.
Arson requires the following elements: (1) a fire was set intentionally; and (2) the
accused was identified as the person who caused it. The corpus delicti rule is satisfied
by proof of the fact that there was a fire, and it was intentionally caused. Section 3 of PD
1613 provides the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua to offenders who
intentionally burned buildings and structures, including any inhabited house or dwelling.
The Court of Appeals appropriately modified the appellant’s conviction from
arson with homicide to simple arson based on existing jurisprudence. In the case
People vs Malngan, the Supreme Court pronounced that in cases where both burning
and death occur, the crime/s committed is determined based on the main objective of
the malefactor. If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice and death is
resulted by reason or on the occasion of arson, the resulting homicide is absorbed, and
the crime is simply arson. On the other hand, if the objective is to kill a person who may
be inside the building and fire is utilized to accomplish it, then it is murder. Lastly, if the
goal is to kill a person which the offender has already done so, and fire is resorted to
cover up the killing, then two (2) separate crimes of homicide/murder and arson are
committed.
Therefore, as the main objective of Dolendo is the burning of the inhabited house
or dwelling, and the death of Leonardo Jr. occurred by reason of such arson, he
committed simple arson.
People vs Soriano
G.R. No. 142565 | July 29, 2003
Bellosillo, J.
Topic: Anti-Arson Law
Facts:
About midnight of 17 September onto the early dawn of 18 September 1998,

accused-appellant Nestor Soriano was having an argument with his live-in partner
Honey Cimagila about their son Nestor Jr. (“Otoy”). The disagreement started when
Honey’s brother Oscar, took the child out without the consent of Soriano who wanted
that both Honey and Otoy to return with him to Manila. The heated exchanges escalated
to getting physical, with Cimagila kicking Soriano and Soriano hitting her in the
forehead. Soriano, out of intense anger, lighted a cigarette and set fire on the plastic
partition and her clothes. Cimagila fled to the ground floor. Accused followed her and
choked her as he dragged her toward the kitchen. After initially pointing a knife at her,
Soriano saw that the entire area has already been engulfed in flames. They had no
choice but to leave the house and as a result, six (6) houses, including Cimagila’s was
burned.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the
Destructive Arson in para 1, Article 320 of the RPC
Ruling:
Yes, the RTC erred in convicting Soriano for Destructive Arson.
Under Art. 320, as amended, the enumeration of the instances for Destructive
Arson is exclusive and describes it as a heinous crime involving the malicious burning of
structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft,
factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any person or
a group of persons. However, the properties burned by Soriano are specifically
described as houses, contemplating the inhabited houses or dwellings provided for in
Section 3, para. 2 of PD 1613 (Simple Arson) which imposes a penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua. Moreover, the act committed by accused-appellant
neither appears to be heinous nor represents a greater degree of perversity and
viciousness as Soriano merely acted more on impulse and anger.
Therefore, Soriano should be convicted of simple arson instead of destructive

arson.

Arson Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arson Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arson Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs Dolendo

G.R. No. 223098 | June 03, 2019

Topic: Anti-Arson Law

On September 18, 1996 at about 4 PM in the afternoon in Sitio Capatagan, Brgy.

Yes, the accused Dolendo is guilty of simple arson.

G.R. No. 142565 | July 29, 2003

Topic: Anti-Arson Law

About midnight of 17 September onto the early dawn of 18 September 1998,

Yes, the RTC erred in convicting Soriano for Destructive Arson.

Therefore, Soriano should be convicted of simple arson instead of destructive

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.