Arson; categories.

There are actually two categories of arson, namely: Destructive Arson under Article 320 of the
Revised Penal Code and Simple Arson under Presidential Decree No. 1316. Said classification is based on the kind,
character and location of the property burned, regardless of the value of the damage caused. Article 320
contemplates 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 group of persons.
On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 1316 covers houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills,
plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments. People of the Philippines v.
Jessie Villegas Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010.
Arson; evidence. In the prosecution for the crime of arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the
evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the
defendant as the one responsible for the crime. In arson, the corpus delictirule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of
the fire and of it having been intentionally caused. People of the Philippines v. Jessie Villegas Murcia, G.R. No.
182460, March 9, 2010.
Arson; objective of arson; distinguished from homicide/murder. In cases where both burning and death occur, in
order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder,
it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the
building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the
resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be
in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder
only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so,
but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed
homicide/murder and arson. People of the Philippines Vs. Ferdinand T. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15,
2010.
Arson; objective of arson; distinguished from homicide/murder. As it was not shown that the main motive was to
kill the occupants of the house, the crime would only be arson, the homicide being a mere consequence thereof,
hence, absorbed by arson. People of the Philippines Vs. Ferdinand T. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010.
Arson; simple arson. A close examination of the records, as well as description of the crime as stated in the
information of this case reveals that the crime committed is in fact simple arson because the burned properties are
residential houses. People of the Philippines v. Jessie VillegasMurcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010.

Palattao notes:

Arson is defined as the intentional or malicious destruction of a property by fire.

Legal effect if death results from arson.

The crime committed is still arson. Death is absorbed in the crime of arson but the penalty to be imposed ranges
from reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 5, P.D. No. 1613)

How arson is established.

Arson is established by proving the corpus delicti, usually in the form of circumstancial evidence such as the
criminal agency, meaning the substance used, like gasoline, kerosene or other form of bustible materials which
caused the fire. It can also be in the form of electrical wires, mechanical, chemical or electronic contrivance
designed to start a fire; ashes or traces of such objects which are found in the ruins of the burned premises.

Notes:
If the crime of arson was employed by the offender as a means to kill the offended party, the crime committed is
murder. The burning of the property as the means to kill the victim is what is contemplated by the word fire
under Article 248 which qualifies the crime to murder. (People vs. Villarosa, 54 O. G. 3482)

When the burning of the property was done by the offender only to cause damage but the arson resulted to death of
a person, the crime committed is still arson because the death of the victim is a mere consequence and not the
intention of the offender. (People vs. Paterno, 47 O. G. 4600)

There is no special complex crime of arson with homicide. What matters in resolving cases involving intentional
arson is the criminal intent of the offender.

There is such a crime as reckless imprudence resulting in the commission of arson. When the arson results from
reckless imprudence and it leads to death, serious physical injuries and damage to the property of another, the
penalty to be imposed shall not be for the crime of arson under P. D. No. 1613 but rather, the penalty shall be
based on Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as a felony committed by means of culpa.
 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Notes:
1. Malicious mischief willful damaging of anothers property for the sake of causing damage due to hate,
revenge or other evil motive

2. No negligence

3. Example. Killing the cow as revenge

4. If no malice only civil liability

Meaning of damage in malicious mischief.

It means not only loss but a diminution of the value of ones property. It includes defacing, deforming or rendering it
useless for the purpose for which it was made.

5. But after damaging the thing, he used it = theft

There is destruction of the property of another but there is no misappropriation. Otherwise, it would be theft if he
gathers the effects of destruction.

6. Damage is not incident of a crime (breaking windows in robbery)

Article 328
SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
The cases of malicious mischief enumerated in this article are so-called qualified malicious mischief. The crime
becomes qualified either because of the nature of the damage caused to obstruct a public; or because of the kind of
substance used to cause the damage. The crime is still malicious mischief because the offender has no intent to gain
but derives satisfaction from the act because of hate, revenge or other evil motive.

Note: Qualified malicious mischief no uprising or sedition (#1)

Article 329
OTHER MISCHIEF

The offender is punished according to the value of the damage caused to the offended party. If the damages cannot
be estimated, the minimum penalty is arresto menor or a fine of not more than 200 pesos shall be imposed on the
offender.

Article 330
DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
Notes:
1. removing rails from tracks is destruction (art 324)

2. not applicable when telegraph/phone lines dont pertain to railways (example: for transmission of electric
power/light)

3. people killed as a result:

a. murder if derailment is means of intent to kill

b. none art 48
If the damage was intended to cause derailment only without any intention to kill, it will be a crime involving
destruction under Article 324. If the derailment is intentionally done to cause the death of a person, the crime
committed will be murder under Article 248.

4. circumstance qualifying the offense if the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or other
accident a higher penalty shall be imposed

Offenses involved in the exemption

1. Theft ( not robbery )

2. Swindling

3. Malicious mischief

Notes:
1. Exemption is based on family relations

For the exemption to apply insofar as brothers and sisters, and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law are concerned,
they must be living together at the time of the commission of the crime of theft, estafa or malicious mischief.
2. Parties to the crime not related to the offended party still remains criminally liable

3. Persons exempt include:

a. stepfather/mother (ascendants by affinity)

b. adopted children (descendants)

c. concubine/paramour (spouse)

d. common law spouse (property is part of their earnings)

Only the relatives enumerated incur no liability if the crime relates to theft (not robbery), swindling, and malicious
mischief. Third parties who participate are not exempt. The relationship between the spouses is not limited to
legally married couples; the provision applies to live-in partners.

Estafa should not be complexed with any other crime in order for exemption to operate.