Arson: Destructive (A320 RPC), Simple (PD 1613) (2024)

Arson refers to the malicious burning of property by means of fire.

1. Concept

Arson – is the malicious burning of property. (People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, Per Bellosillo, J.)

Arson – is defined as the malicious destruction of property by fire. (People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 126351, February 18, 2000)

b. Legislative history

Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008, Per Reyes, R.T., J.:

• THE law on arson has always been a constant source of confusion not only among members of the bar, but also among those of the bench. The bewilderment often centers on what law to apply and what penalty to impose.

• Overview of the law on arson

• The confusion surrounding arson has been confounded by the dearth of annotation on this part of our penal law. Certainly, the law on arson is one of the least commented in this jurisdiction. For the guidance of the bench and bar, a brief legislative history of the body of laws on arson is in order.

• Previously, arson was defined and penalized under nine different articles of the Revised Penal Code: Article 320 (destructive arson), Article 321 (other forms of arson), Article 322 (cases of arson not included in the preceding articles), Article 323 (arson of property of small value), Article 324 (crimes involving destruction), Article 325 (burning one’s own property to commit arson), Article 326 (setting fire to property exclusively owned by the offender, Article 326-a (in cases where death resulted as a consequence of arson), and Article 326-b (prima facie evidence of arson).

• On March 7, 1979, citing certain inadequacies that impede the successful enforcement and prosecution of arsonists, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree (P.D) No. 1613. P.D. 1613 supplanted the penal code provisions on arson….

• On November 11, 1980, the law on arson was again revisited via P.D. No. 1744. The new law expanded the definition of destructive arson by way of reinstating Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code. The amendatory legislation also paved the way for the reimposition of the capital punishment on destructive arsonists.

• When Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659 (An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes) was passed on December 13, 1993, Article 320 again underwent a revision… [a]s it now stands…

• Of course, with the repeal of the Death Penalty Law on June 24, 2006 through R.A. No. 9346, arson is no longer a capital offense.

2. Modes of commission

The following are the modes of committing the offense:

1) Destructive arson, Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code; or

2) Simple arson, PD 1613.

1) Destructive Arson, Article 320 RPC

Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, 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. The classification of this type of crime is known as Destructive Arson, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The reason for the law is self-evident: to effectively discourage and deter the commission of this dastardly crime, to prevent the destruction of properties and protect the lives of innocent people. Exposure to a brewing conflagration leaves only destruction and despair in its wake; hence, the State mandates greater retribution to authors of this heinous crime. The exceptionally severe punishment imposed for this crime takes into consideration the extreme danger to human lives exposed by the malicious burning of these structures; the danger to property resulting from the conflagration; the fact that it is normally difficult to adopt precautions against its commission, and the difficulty in pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the greater impact on the social, economic, security and political fabric of the nation. (People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, Per Bellosillo, J.)

The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes “for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.” On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and national security implications than Destructive Arson. (Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008, Per Reyes, R.T., J.)

In sum, “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.” (People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013, Per Brion, J.)

a) Elements of destructive arson

The elements of simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613 are:

1) There is intentional burning; and

2) What is intentionally burned are those enumerated in Article 320. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 320)

2) Simple arson, PD 1613

On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B of The Revised Penal Code remains the governing law for Simple Arson. This decree contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included in Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659, and classified as other cases of arson. These include houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments.14 Although the purpose of the law on Simple Arson is to prevent the high incidence of fires and other crimes involving destruction, protect the national economy and preserve the social, economic and political stability of the nation, PD 1613 tempers the penalty to be meted to offenders. This separate classification of Simple Arson recognizes the need to lessen the severity of punishment commensurate to the act or acts committed, depending on the particular facts and circ*mstances of each case. (People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, Per Bellosillo, J.)

Under Sec. 4 of PD 1613, if special aggravating circ*mstances are present in the commission of Simple Arson, the penalty under Sec. 3 shall be imposed in its maximum period: (a) If committed with intent to gain; (b) If committed for the benefit of another; (c) If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned; and, (d) If committed by a syndicate, or group of three (3) or more persons. If by reason, or on the occasion of Simple Arson death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. (People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003, Per Bellosillo, J.)

P.D. No. 1613 contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included in Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This law punishes simple arson with a lesser penalty because the acts that constitute it have a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness. Simple arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political, and national security implications than destructive arson. (People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013, Per Brion, J.)

a) Elements of simple arson

The elements of simple arson under Section 3(2) of P.D. No. 1613 are:

1) There is intentional burning; and

2) What is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. (Ibid.)

People v. Macabando, G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013, Per Brion, J.:

• Both these elements have been proven in the present case. The Information alleged that the appellant set fire to his own house, and that the fire spread to other inhabited houses. These allegations were established during trial through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which the trial and appellate courts found credible and convincing, and through the report of the Bureau of Fire Protection which stated that damaged houses were residential, and that the fire had been intentional. Moreover, the certification from the City Social Welfare and Development Department likewise indicated that the burned houses were used as dwellings. The appellant likewise testified that his burnt two-story house was used as a residence. That the appellant’s act affected many families will not convert the crime to destructive arson, since the appellant’s act does not appear to be heinous or represents a greater degree of perversity and viciousness when compared to those acts punished under Article 320 of the RPC. The established evidence only showed that the appellant intended to burn his own house, but the conflagration spread to the neighboring houses.

People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 126351, February 18, 2000, Per Quisumbing, J.:

3. Things to note

The following are some additional things to note about this offense.

a. Common provisions

This offense shares common provisions with other offenses under Title X of the Revised Penal Code – Crimes Against Property. See: Crimes Against Property

b. Intent

Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of Arson, it may be inferred from the acts of the accused. There is a presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his act; and when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is not bound to produce further evidence of his wrongful intent. If there is an eyewitness to the crime of Arson, he can give in detail the acts of the accused. When this is done the only substantial issue is the credibility of the witness. In the crime of Arson, the prosecution may describe the theatre of the crime and the conditions and circ*mstances surrounding it. Evidence of this type is part of the res gestae. (People v. Soriano, supra.)

3A. Procedural

The following are some procedural matters.

a. Corpus delicti

Proof of the corpus delicti is indispensable in the prosecution of arson, as in all kinds of criminal offenses. Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is the fact that a crime has actually been committed. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a house burned down and of its having been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. (People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 180448, July 28, 2008)

b. Information, to allege what was burned

People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 100699, July 5, 1996, Per Vitug, J.:

• The information charges appellant with “‘violation of P.D. 1613” without specifying the particular provision breached. The information having failed to allege whether or not the burnt house is inhabited, 20 and not having been established that the house is situated in a populated or congested area, 21 appellant should be deemed to have only been charged with plain arson under Section 1 of the decree. Kalookan City might be a densely populated part of the metropolis but its entire territory cannot be said to be congested. Although the whole 2-storey wood and galvanized iron house has not been completely gutted by the fire, the crime committed is still consummated arson. 22 It is enough that a portion thereof is shown to have been destroyed. 23 Under Section 1 of the decree, the offense of simple arson committed is punishable by prision mayor. The Court feels that the trial court should not have appreciated the “special” aggravating circ*mstance, under Section 4(3) of the decree, of the offender having been “motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned.” The prosecution does not dispute the mauling of appellant by a son of Mario Alano just a few hours before the incident. It would appear to us to be more of impulse, heat of anger or risen temper, rather than real spite or hatred, that has impelled appellant to give vent to his wounded ego.

Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008, Per Reyes, R.T., J.:

• The information charges accused-appellants with “violation of P.D. 1613” without specifying the particular provision breached. The information having failed to allege whether or not the burnt house is inhabited, and not having been established that the house is situated in a populated or congested area, accused-appellants should be deemed to have only been charged with plain arson under Section 1 of the decree. Under Section 1 of the decree, the offense of simple arson committed is punishable by prision mayor.

• [T]he information failed to allege that what was intentionally burned was an inhabited house or dwelling. That is fatal.

• Sections 8 and 9 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure state:

Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. – The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circ*mstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. – The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circ*mstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circ*mstances for the court to pronounce judgment.

• Under the new rules, the information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circ*mstances. Otherwise stated, the accused will not be convicted of the offense proved during the trial if it was not properly alleged in the information.

• Perusing the information, there was no allegation that the house intentionally burned by petitioners and their cohorts was inhabited. Rather, the information merely recited that “accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent to cause damage, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and maliciously set on fire the nipa roof of the house of ADELINA B. BORBE, to the latter’s damage and prejudice.”

• Although the rule took effect only on December 1, 2000, while the petitioners were convicted by the RTC on April 7, 1998, it may be applied retroactively. It is elementary that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused.

• In fine, petitioners can be convicted only of simple arson, under Section 1, paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1613, punishable by prision mayor.

c. Burning and death occur

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 v. Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, Per Martires, J.)

People v. Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, Per Martires, J.:

• Foremost, there is a need to determine whether the crime committed by the petitioners based on the facts was arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder using the following guidelines based on jurisprudence…

• According to Jocelyn, when Artemio refused to open the door, the group began shooting at the house. The group followed Artemio when he ran under the house, and there shot him – facts that unerringly leave the conclusion that the group’s objective was to kill Artemio.

• Jocelyn testified that when Artemio refused to heed the demand of the group to give them food by opening the door, the group started to bum the house using a lighted torch of coconut leaves, which flames Artemio was able to put out. When Artemio still refused to open the door, the group threatened that they would burn the house. They made good their threat before they went after Artemio who ran below his house. Undoubtedly, the group’s intent was also to burn down the house of Artemio, not only to kill him.

• With these established facts, the prosecution was correct in charging Sota, Gadjadli, and the three unnamed persons with murder and arson.

References

• Title 10 – Crimes Against Property, Book 2, Revised Penal Code

• Presidential Decree No. 1613

/Updated: June 25, 2023

Arson: Destructive (A320 RPC), Simple (PD 1613) (2024)

FAQs

How would you define destructive arson? ›

Destructive arson is considered as a specific crime because it involves intentionally setting fire to a building or structure with the intention of causing damage or destruction. This type of crime can cause harm to both property and human life, as well as disrupt the community.

What are the requisites of arson in the Philippines? ›

Section 5 of the same law states that if by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed. As such, the elements of the crime are: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.

Is there attempted arson in the Philippines? ›

The penalties for attempted arson in the Philippines vary depending on the circ*mstances of the offense and the extent of damage caused or intended to be caused. If the attempted arson results in no damage or the damage is minimal, the offender may face imprisonment for a minimum period.

Show Me More ›

What is destructive fire? ›

Definitions of destruction fire. noun. fire delivered for the sole purpose of destroying material objects. type of: fire, firing. the act of firing weapons or artillery at an enemy.

Explore More ›

What is arson damage? ›

arson, crime commonly defined by statute as the willful or malicious damage or destruction of property by means of fire or explosion. In English common law, arson referred to the burning of another person's dwellings under circ*mstances that endangered human life.

See Details ›

What is the lowest level of arson? ›

Misdemeanor arson is the lowest level of arson charges and involves carelessly causing a fire that results in minimal damage.

Which three 3 elements must a fire investigator prove in a criminal case of arson? ›

In order to successfully prosecute an arson case we must have, and prove, three essential elements of the crime-namely: (1) that a burning occurred; (2) that the burning was the result of a criminal agency; and (3) that the accused was responsible for the criminal agency.

Explore More ›

What is the severity of arson? ›

In such cases, charges can escalate to include attempted murder or manslaughter if there are fatalities. Legal systems often classify arson into first, second, third, and sometimes fourth degree, with first-degree arson being the most serious, involving intent to cause injury or reckless disregard for human life.

Explore More ›

What is a proof in arson? ›

The following may indicate arson: signs of forceful entry into the structure; indications that another crime was committed on the premises; evidence of efforts to impede firefighter access to the building; windows left open, holes bored in walls, or interior doors tied open; removal of valuable property from the ...

What is the first step in an arson investigation? ›

Conducting the Preliminary Examination

The preliminary examination is a vital first step in fire investigation. It involves a careful look at burn patterns and possible sources of ignition to pinpoint the fire's point of origin. It's important to approach this task methodically, as outlined in the NFPA 921 standards.

Read The Full Story ›

Does arson require specific intent? ›

Arson is a general intent crime. It prohibits conduct--lighting a house on fire.

What is PD 1613 in the Philippines? ›

1613 establishes penalties for arson and destructive arson in the Philippines, targeting specific types of properties and outlining special aggravating circ*mstances, while also providing prima facie evidence and addressing conspiracy to commit arson, and allowing for the confiscation and escheatment of the property ...

How long do you go to jail for arson in the Philippines? ›

The penalties for arson are commensurate with the severity of the act and can range from imprisonment to even reclusion perpetua, a life sentence, in the most extreme cases.

Keep Reading ›

What is the most committed crime in the Philippines? ›

Among crimes committed against individuals in the Philippines, rape had the highest reported cases in 2023 alone. While the number of rape cases has shown a significant decline between 2022 and 2023, the volume of such cases remains alarming.

How do you describe arson? ›

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines arson as any willful or malicious burning or attempting to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.

Read On ›

What is the definition of the following terms arson? ›

ar·son ˈärs-ᵊn. : the act or crime of willfully, wrongfully, and unjustifiably setting property on fire often for the purpose of committing fraud (as on an insurance company) arsonist. -ist.

Discover More ›

Is arson the same as vandalism? ›

Criminal damage, also known as vandalism or malicious mischief, refers to the intentional destruction or defacement of property belonging to another person or entity. This offense can encompass a wide range of actions, from graffiti and property damage to arson and sabotage.

Get More Info ›