criminal law quiz
PROBLEM No. 1. The Information states that :That on or about the 1st day of January, 1994 at 3:00 o'clock in the Barangay Hacienda, Island of San Miguel, Municipality of Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named 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.
Question: If said allegations in the Information are proven true by the prosecution, as Judge, to what kind of arson are you going to convict the accused? Explain.
Problem No. 2. As stated in the body of the
Information, accused-appellant was charged with having intentionally burned
the two-storey residential house of Robert Separa. Said
conflagration likewise spread and destroyed seven (7) adjoining houses
and in effect resulted to the death of one person who lived in one of the
houses. What crime is committed and what should be the penalty? Explain.
Problem No. 3. In one case the facts show that
four persons approached the house of Cleopatra, who saw them. Later, while Cleopatra
was inside her house, busy with her cooking, she heard some neighbors shouting
that her cocodryer is burning. She went out and saw p1 running away with a
torch in his hand, P2 laughing at her, P3
running away together with P1, while P4 was shouting at her, “na, galot
man god ka!”. Question, what crime is committed by the four Ps? Cleopatra
neither did any neighbor really saw any of the four lighting the house with a
torch. Can they be convicted just the same? Explain.
Problem No. 4. Luis was very angry at Maria who
did not agree to be his girlfriend. That night, he planned to kill her. So he
went to her house, stabbed her and after killing her, he burned her small
house. What crime is committed by Luis? What if he decided to burn the house
not knowing that Maria was there sleeping inside her room, and while the house
burned, Maria was also burned with it? Will it be the same crime? Explain.
Problem No. 5. Aside
from the fact that accused already admitted to the commission of the crime of
destructive arson due to his plea of insanity, which as We discussed above
was not successfully proven, the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove
that the accused burned the house of the victim in order to hide or conceal the
commission of the crime. It was established that accused first beheaded the
victim before setting the latter's house on fire. What crime is committed by
the accused? Explain.
Agapito Balili
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 416
Writing time: 65 minutes
Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com
Class: Criminal/Political
Teacher: Atty. Ric. Bastasa
Problem No. 1. (ans). The accused shall be convicted with simple arson under PD 1613. There are 2 elements to be proved in the crime of arson both under Art. 320 of the RPC, or under PD 1613, namely: 1. the corpus delicti or the substance of the case or the facts proving that the offense has been committed; and 2. the act of setting fire is intentional. These two reqisites are present in the instant problem. The accused shall be charged and convicted of simple crime of arson only, because the structure maliciously burned is not included in the enumeration of buildings or structures to be burned under Article 320 of the Revised Penl Code.
2. The crime committd here is Destructive arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code, and since the conflagaration spread and destroyed seven adjoing houses, and resulted to the death of one person, the penalty is death (now relusion perpetua).
3. It is submitted that the crime was simple arson punishable under PD 1613. They could be convicted by proving conspiracy thru circumstancial evidence. More than 2 circumstances can be proved in this case. One, the neighbors were shouting that her cocodryer was burning; second cleopatra saw p1 running with a torch together with p3; and another circumstance can be infered when p4 shouted at them saying "na galot man gud ka". All these would point to an inescapable conclusion that there were the ones doing the felonious act.
4. When Luis stabbed and killed Maria first and then burned her small house, it is clear that he wants to hide the reality that he killed Maria by burning her house together with Maria's dead body. The crime is Murder and Arson. But if Luis burned the house not knowing that Maria was there sleeping inside her room, and while the house burned, Maria was also burned with it, the crime that Luis committed was Arson under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code and by that, he, under the law should be penalized by death now reclusion perpetua.
5. The accused committed the crime of Murder and arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code. This is so, beacause under the law, when the intention of the accused is to kill the victim, and in order to hide or conceal the commisiion of the crime, he burned the house together with the victim, the crime committed by the accused is a separate crime of murder and arson.
Agapito Balili
2020-11-17
Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 653
Writing time: 57 minutes
Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
I
The kind of arson to be charged against the accused is simple arson.
Simple arson is governed by PD 1613 which repealed Arts 321 to 326-B of the Revised Penal Code. Under this decree, simple arson is the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size , not included in Art 320 of the RPC and classified as other cases or arson. These include houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills =, plantation, railways, bus stations,airports and other industrial establishments. This separate classification of Simple Arson recognizes the need to lessen the severity of punishment commensurate to the acts committed, depending on the particular acts and circumstances.
In the given case, what was maliciously set on fire is the nipa roof of the house of the Adelina, hence properly under the mantle of simple arson.
II
The crime committed is simple arson.
If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on occassion of arson, the crime is simple arson and the resulting homicide is absorbed.
In the given case,the main objective is to burn the 2 storey residential house of Robert Separa and in effect resulted to the death of one person hence, crime committed is simple arson. However, since death results from arson the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
III
The crime committed by the four Ps is simple arson.
Proof beyond reasonable cannot only be obtained by direct evidence but can also be obtained by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evience is sufficient to sustain conviction if there are more the one circumstance; the facts from which the interference is derived are proven; and the combination of all the circumstances is as such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, conspiracy is the act of two or more person who come to an agreement regarding the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of a prior meeting between the perpetrators to dicuss the commission of the crime is not necessary as long as their concerted acts reveal a common design and unity of purpose. In such a case the act of one is the act of all.
In the given case, although neither Cleopatra nor any neighbor saw any of the four P's lighted the house, the circumstantial evidence surrounding the incident is sufficient to convict the four Ps.
IV
The crimes committed by Luis are murder and arson.
If the objective is 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.
In the given case, since the objective of Luis is to kill Maria attended by evident premeditation the crime committed is murder. Evident premeditation exists when the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time suffiient to arrive at a calm judgment. Futhermore, since he burned the house after killing her, he is likewise liable for arson.
If Luis decided to burn the house not knowing that Maria was there sleeping and was also burned with it the crime committed is simple arson and the resulting homicide is absorbed.
V
The crime committed by the accused are homicide and arson.
If the main objective is to kill a particular person and in fact the offender has already done so, bur fire was resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed which are homicide/murder and arson.
In the given case, the accused first beheaded the victim before setting the latter's house on fire in order to conceal the commission of the crime. Hence, the crimes committed are homicide and arson.
Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez
2020-11-17
Ameliano Himang
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 279
Writing time: 47 minutes
Email: mhelghimang@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review Class
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Ameliano G. Himang
Criminal Law Review
1. If I were the Judge, i will convict the accused of Arson under Section 1. which provides that any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by prision mayor.
11. The crime committed is Destructive Arson. Under the law on distructive arson, if 1 or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions. The penaly should be reclusion perpetua to death. In the case at bar, since the accused having intentionally burned the 2 storey residential house of Robert Separa and spreading and destroyed seven (7) adjoing houses and resulting to the death of one person the accused is liable for a Destructive Arson.
111. They four Ps are not liable for the crime of Arson. Evidence shows that Cleopatra neither did any neighbor really saw any of the four lighting the house with a torch. However, if it could be established by circumstancial evidence and each circumstance be proven by clear and convincing evidence, i believe that they can be prosecuted for arson. And no they can not be convicted, because there was no direct evidence, and in criminal case the quantum of proof reqiuired is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
1V.
1. The crime committed by Luis is Murder by killing his girlfriend with aggravating circumstance. He can be prosecuted Under Sec. 5, Where death reasult from Arson. which provides that if by reason of or on occasion of arson death results, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
V. The crime committed by the accused is Murder.
Ameliano Himang
2020-11-17
Anilyn Evangelista
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 353
Writing time: 54 minutes
Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
I.
I will convict him of simple arson.
Simple arson contemplates malicios burning of public and private structures. These include houses and dwellings. In the case at bar, the information which states that maliciously set on fire the nipa roof of the house is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of simple arson.
II.
The crime committed is simple arson.
Simple arson is committed when there is malicious burning or public or private structures and which include houses and dwellings. In the given case, the two-storey residential house fall within the definition of simle arson.
Since death results from arson, the penalty should be in the maximum period considering the aggravating circumstance of death. The penalty should be reclusion perpetua to death.
III.
They committed Destructive Arson perpetrated as a syndicate.
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a syndicate as shown from the facts, hence destructive arson perpetrated as a syndicate was committed.
The four persons convicted just the same.
To establish conspiracy, proof to a previous agreement is not essential, it is sufficient it they acted in concert which is present in the case at bar. All the four persons was acted in concert and runaway from the crime scene instead of giving some hand.
IV.
Luis committed the crime of murder and arson. He is liable for the two separate crimes since after killing Maria he still burned the house. The burning of the house has no connection in killing Maria, Hence, he is liable for murder and arson.
No the crime will not be the same.
He will be liable for arson since what he really intent to commit is to burn the house and not to kill Maria. The death of Maria will be an aggravating circumstance and the penalty will be imposed to the maximum period.
V.
The crime committed is murder.
He is not liable for arson for the very reason that what he intends to commit is to kill the victim and in burning the house to conceal the crime is an aggravating circumstance of the crime committed which is murder.
Anilyn Evangelista
2020-11-17
Ariel Acopiado
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 603
Writing time: 63 minutes
Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com
Class: JD-IV
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. The crime would be that of simple arson.
Under the law, there is simple arson when none of the circumstances of destructive arson are present. Elements include (a) intentional burning of a property and (b) such was caused by accused. Further the law provides that the arson is aggravated when performed by a syndicate or 3 or more people.
It is apparent in this case that all the elements are present, hence the crime should be that of simple arson. Further there is no mention in the information that the building burnt down was in a populated area, thus, the crime cannot qualify as destructive arson.
2. The crime is simple arson and the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Arson is committed when two elements are present: (a) intentional burning of another's property and (b) the accused caused it. Under the law simple arson is committed when the property destroyed was not one of those enumerated or under the circumstances for destructive arson. The law further establishes that the penalty would be that of reclusion perpetua to death when thefire results to death.
All the elements being present, such must be the verdict as embodied under the aforementioned statutes. However there being no aggravating circumstance, the penalty should only be reclusion perpetua.
3. The crime is simple arson and that of conspiracy to commit arson.
Under the law, arson is committed when there is property of another is burned intentionally and that the accused caused it. Further, conspiracy occurs when when there is identity of the criminal design and interests and such acts were carried out in its fulfillment. Conspiracy arises when there is coordinated action to perpetuate the crime.
In this case, it is clear that the participants were involved in the burning of the dwelling and thus conspiracy was established. Absent showing that the building burned as that in a populous area, it cannot qualify as destructive arson and only a simple one.
4. The crime is murder and arson.
Case law establishes that if the death is incidental to the burning, arson absorbs homicide or murder. If the objective was to kill the person in the property, murder absorbs arson. But if the person kills another and burns the property with intention to hide the body, then both murder and arson shall be imposed. Under the law arson is committed when a property is burned intentionally and that accused caused it. Elements of murder is that there is (a) a person killed (b) accused caused the killing (c) treachery or premeditation and (d) not infanticide or parricide.
Luis killing Maria then burning the house, clearly falls under the third, fulfilling both elements as to murder and arson since the killing was premeditated and the latter was borne out of the desire to conceal the evidence.
In the 2nd alternative situation where Luis did not know of Maria's presence, the crime is only arson.
5. The crime is homicide with arson.
Under established jurisprudence, when a person kills another then burns the property to hide the body, the crime is that of homicide (or murder) and arson. Under the law arson is committed when a property is burned intentionally and that accused caused it. Elements of homicide is that there is (a) a person killed (b) accused caused the killing (c) absence of treachery, premeditation and others that qualifying circumstances to murder and (d) not infanticide or parricide.
In this case it is apparent that there is intentional burning of the house. However, since the problem does not indicate treachery or premeditation, the same shall only qualify as that of homicide.
Ariel Acopiado
2020-11-17
Arnold Bongcayao
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 448
Writing time: 52 minutes
Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. The accused may be convicted of simple arson.
The information failed to allege whether the burnt house is inhabited or established that the house is situated in a populated or congested area.
Hence, the accused should be deemed to be charged with plain arson only in violation to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1613.
2. The crime committed is Destructive Arson under Art. 320, RPC as amended by RA 7659 and the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
The accused committed Destructive Arson when he burned one (1) or more buildings, consequent to one single act of burning. Although his target is the house of Robert, he will be liable also to the damages for the adjoining houses.
Where death results from Arson, the mandatory penalty of Death will be imposed. However, with the repeal of the Death Penalty Law arson is no longer a capital offense. Hence, his penalty is reclusion perpetua.
3. Yes, they can be convicted for the same crime because conspiracy exists. It can inferred from their acts that their is community of interest. There is a concerted action to effect the burning of Cleopatra's house.
Conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence. Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting the felon free. This is applicable in this case because no one really saw any of the four accused lighting the house with a torch.
4. In the first case, Luis committed the crime of Murder. His act of burning the house to conceal the corpus delicti is absorbed in the crime of Murder because his original criminal design is to kill Maria.
On the second case, Luis committed the crime of Destructive Arson penalized under Art. 320, RPC. His criminal design is to burned the house and it resulted to Maria's death. Where death resulted from Arson, then the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
It will not be the same crime with the first case. On the first instance, his original criminal design is to kill Maria. While on the second case, his original criminal design is to burned the house of Maria.
5. The accused committed the crime of Murder. Since the elements of the Murder are present in the case, specifically:
a) that a person was killed;
b) the accused killed him;
c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstance mentioned;
d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
His act of burning the house to conceal the evidence of the crime will be absorbed in the crime of Murder. His original criminal design is to kill the victim and setting the fire is his way of aggravating the offense.
Arnold Bongcayao
2020-11-17
Bobby Borces
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 750
Writing time: 51 minutes
Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1.
Granting that said allegations in the Informations are proved true by the Prosecution, as Judge, I will convict the accused for simple Arson only. The reason is that, there is only one house being set on fire and no one was also killed on the accasion or by reason of the arson. In short, the act is not so outrageous, grievous, odius and hateful offense. With this, the accused should only be convicted of simple arson and not of destructive arson.
2.
Under the set of facts given, the crime committed is destructive arson because there as many houses were burned which resulted also to the death of one person who lived in one of the houses. The killing here is absorbed and should not be treated as a separate crime because the law provides that it is the intention of the accused that should be used as gauge in determining what crime or crimes was or were committed.
It is very clear in the given situation that it was really the intention of the accused to burn the two-storey residential house of Robert Separa and this conflagration likewise spread to the other houses. Although, there was one person who was also killed on the process, but this killing is absorbed since this happens by reason or on occasion of the arson.
Thus, the crime committed is destructive arson and the penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
3.
The crime committed by the fours Ps is simple arson because there is only one building which is her cocodryer, was set on fire and no one was also killed nor hurt on the process.
Even if no one was able to see any of the four lighted the house with torch, they can still be convicted on account of circumstantial evidence. There are series of circumstances present in this case which would warrant their conviction. Firstly, Cleopatra saw the four persons approached her house; secondly, she saw p1 running away with a torch in his hand; thirdly, she saw P3 run away together with P1, and lastly, she heard P2 laughing at her and P4 shouted at her "na, galot man god ka". These facts clearly demonstrate that these four persons were the responsible persons in the burning of her cocodryer or house. And their acts also clearly demonstrate that there exists conspiracy among them. Since conspirary exists, the four persons should be held guilty because the act of one is the act of all. Conspirary exists when two or more peprsons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided to commit it.
Thus, the four Ps can be convicted of simple arson.
4.
Luis committed the separate crimes of Arson and Murder. These crimes are separate and distinct from each other because it is really clear that his only intention was only to kill Maria. However, when he already killed Maria, he also burned her small house. This burning of house is only his afterthought which is not part and parcel of his original intention of only killing Maria. Thus, under the law, the killing cannot be absorbed.
If Luis has no knowledge that Maria was there sleeping inside her room, who was also burned with the house, then under the law, the crime is only Arson and the Homicide or Murder is absorbed. The law clearly provides that it is the intention of the accused that plays an important role in determing what crime the accused committed. Since, his only intention was only to burn the house, the killing on the process is absorbed and cannot be treated as a separate crime.
5.
The accused committed separate crimes of destructive arson and murder or homicide, depending on the circumstances during the killing of the victim.
The facts clearly show that the killing was already committed when the accused burned the house of the victim in order to hide or conceal the commission of the crime. Arson here cannot be absorbed because this was done only after the killing. It can be considered as a mere afterthought in order to conceal the killing of the victim. The law provides that the killing to be absorbed in arson it should be by reason or on accasion of arson. Since, in the case at bar, killing was done first and thereafter the house was set on fire in order to hide the killing, then the accused clearly committed two separate crimes of destructive arson and Murder or Homicide.
Bobby Borces
2020-11-17
Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 325
Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. I am going to convict the accused with the crime of Simple Arson.
As distinguished by law, Destructive Arson involves the crime of burning buildings or edifices, the act being characterized as heinous, grievous, and inherently wicked as to constitute national sabotage. On the other hand, Simple Arson contemplates a crime committed by burning structures that are classified as a buildings, mills, residential houses or dwellings, etc.
In this case, since what was alleged in the information constitutes a dwelling or house without specifically alleging that such house was inhabited, then the accused should be convicted with simple arson.
2. As established by jurisprudence, the crime committed is simple arson. However, since there is death resulting from such crime, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
3.
4.
A) The separate crimes committed are murder and arson.
As provided by case law, the Court ruled that when murder is the primary intention of the perpetrator and arson was subsequently committed, the crimes of murder and arson must be charged against him.
In this case, the facts show that there in evident premeditation to kill Maria. Thus, murder is a separate crime from arson.
B) No, the crime will not be the same.
The law is clear that a crime of arson is committed when a person burns or causes the burning of a house or building. This remains true when the perpetrator burns a dwelling not knowing that a person is inside such building. Thus, when death results from such act, the law metes out a more severe penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
5. The crimes committed is homicide and destructive arson.
In a similar case, the Court ruled that absent any qualifying circumstance to convict the accused of murder, he is then held guilty of homicide. On a different note, the crime of destructive arson was also committed since it was employed as a means to conceal the crime of murder.
Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada
2020-11-17
Christian Val G Dionglay
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 279
Writing time: 50 minutes
Email: Christianval4680@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa
1. Based on the information provided above, there is no existing special aggravating circumstances, and the extent of damage cause was minimal, therefore the act committed would constitute a simple crime of arson. Also in the given situation, the names of the accused were not mentioned, therefore there is no way for me to determine if the crime was committed by a syndicate.
2. The main objective of the accused is to burn the house of robert separa, so the act constitute a crime of arson but because of the extent of the damaged caused it could be converted to destructive arson, and the resulting homicide would then be absorbed. The penaltyof destructive arson is reclusion perpetua to death and the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
3. All of them conspired to burn the coco dryer of cleopatra, they even manifested positively that they are fully aware of the act which they have committed. Applying PD1613 a special law, they can all be held liable for the crime of simple arson.
4. If the objective is to kill maria and luis successfully killed her, and he likewise resorted to burn the house to cover up the killing then there are two separate and distinct crimes committted. it could be murder or homicide and arson.
But if luis intention is to burn the house without knowing that maria is inside, and thereby killing her, the crime committed would be arson. and the crime of homicide will be absorbed.
5. In a case similar to the given situation above, it was held that the accussed committed two separate and distinct crimes, the crime of homicide and arson. (people vs songco)
Christian Val G Dionglay
2020-11-17
Cyrus Tingcang
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 462
Writing time: 54 minutes
Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com
Class: Fourth Year Juris Doctor
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. As the Judge, i would rule for the conviction of the accused for the crime of Malicious Mischief inasmuch as it is not shown in the statement of the problem that the entire house of Adelina Borbe was destroyed. Under the law, any person who deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not constitutive of the crime of Arson may be held liable for the crime of Malicious Mischief. This is in consonance with the Pro Reo doctrine which mandates Courts to uphold a milder criminal responsibility in case of doubt in the application of criminal laws.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the crime committed is destructive Arson considering that a total of eight houses were burned and the same resulted to the death of one person. Indubitably, the gravity and perversity of the malefactors is evident in the narraction of the problem which precludes the conviction in any other crime such as simple arson. Perforce, the penalty should be reclusion temporal in its maximum to reclusion perpetua as provided under the law.
3. The crime committed is Malicious Mischief considering that only the cocodryer was burned and nothing else. Under the law, any person who deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not constitutive of the crime of arson may be held liable for the crime of Malicious Mischief. This is in consonance with the Pro Reo doctrine which mandates Courts to uphold a milder criminal responsibility in case of doubt in the application of criminal laws. Moreover, the accuseds can be convicted of the said crime because of conspiracy. Although it is not shown that the accuseds had previously come into agreement to commit the crime, the same may be inferred from their prior and simultaneous acts showing their common design to accomplish their crminal intent.
4. Anent the first question, Luis committed the crime of Murder as the killing was premeditated. The burning of the small house may be apprecaited as an aggravating circumstance of scoffing which causes outrage to the deceased victim.
On the second question, Luis committed the crime of destructive Arson considering that as a result of the burning in question, Maria died which is indicative of the gravity and perversity of the criminal intent of Luis.
5. The examinee humbly submits that the crime committed is Murder. Verily, the act of beheading another person is a clear indication that the killing was done in treacherous manner such that the victim had no way of defending himself from any fatal attack on the part of the offender and was intended to afford impunity upon the latter. Significantly, the burning of the house can be taken as an aggravating circumstance of causing other wrongful act not necessary in the crime chraged.
Cyrus Tingcang
2020-11-17
Dexter Kim Patron
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 641
Writing time: 78 minutes
Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Dexter Kim Patron
1.
Arson is committed when there is intentional burning . It will be a destructive arson if teh burning is done to a building whether used as a dwelling or not, but suituated in a populated congested area. It will be a case of other arson if what is burned is any inhabited house or dwelling.
In the case at bar, the information failed to describe the house burned whether it is a dwelling or an inhabited house or whether it is siatuated in a populated area.
However the nature of destructive arson compared to simple arson is the degree of perveresity or viciousness of the criminal offender. Destructive arson is considered as heinous crime for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which by reason it it inherently wicked. Simple arson has less perversity which contemplates crimes with less social, economic, political and national security implications.
The accused has not shown any perversity as they burned the nipa roof.
I will convict the accused for simple arson.
2.
The Crime commited is destructive arson.
The criminal law provides that any person who caused the burning of a building in a populated area. It is also provided that if by reason of or on occasion of arson death results, the penalty is reclusioin perpetua to death.
The accused burned the two-storey residential house which caused other 7 adjoining houses to be burned and killed 1 person on teh occasion of the arson.
The accused is guilty of destructive arson and be imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
3.
The four Ps commited a felony.
Arson is committed when there is intetional burning of a building or edifice. although none will be able to testify as there was actual lighting of the torch but the Supreme Court states that circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.
And since all were seen holding a torch while the cocodryer was burning, an ordinary man could draw a conclusion based on what we can infer that either or all have contirbuted to the burning.
The law also provides that the felony is committed by a syndicate if it is plannned or carried out by a group of more than 3 persons.
Sincethe four Ps were seen holding the torch and uttering " na galot man god ka" and others were running away and laughing during the burning of the building.
The accused can be convicted of Arson committed by a syndicate.
4.
A)
Luis commited homicide and arson.
Homicide is committed when a person kill another other than his spouse, father, mother child, ascendants and decendants. Murder if there are attending circumstance as stated in Art. 248.
Arson is committed by burning any building house or dwelling. It will be destructive arson if the intention of the buring is to conceal or destroy evidenceof another violation of law.
Luis planned to kill Maria. his plan gave him time to contemplate on his action for the reason that there is evident premeditation. To conceal the crime committed by him he burned the house.
Luis committed murder and arson.
B)
Luis committed Destructive Arson as he burned the inhabited house or dwelling of Maria and which on occasion of the burning Maria died. In this scenario, Luis had no intention to kill Maria but only to burn the house. He will be penalized by reclusion Pertua to Death as a consequence of his action.
5.
The ruling should be based on what has been proved which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Here, the accused admitted destructive arson but what has been proved by the prosecution was murder and destructive arson.
The accused can only be convicted of the offense charged which is destructive arson.
Dexter Kim Patron
2020-11-17
Eduardo Luayon
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 247
Writing time: 64 minutes
Email: eduardomluayon@gmail.com
Class: Crim Law review
Teacher: Judge R. Bastasa
1. As a judge I should convict the accused of Simple Arson. In simple arson, any person or group persons maliciously burns or sets fire the property of another,in this case the house of Adelina,which is proven by the prosecutors in the case at bar.
2. Simple Arson with homicide.
The penalty should be reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of any aggravating circumstances the penalty will be reclusion perpetua.
3. The four Ps committed the crime of Destructive Arson considering the perversity and viciousness of the acts of the accused. Although no one saw the accused setting the Cleopatras house on fire, two or more Circumstanstial evidence may convict the accused.
4. Luis committed the crime of Murder with Arson. Any person who kills another and with attendant qualifying circumstances could be charged with Murder as in the case at bar. He is also charged of Arson for after killing Maria, he deliberately burned Marias house in an effort to hide his crime.
He still charged with Arson but with homicide. For deliberately setting the house on fire he is charged with Arson. Because it was not his intention to kill Maria( luis not knowing that Maria was sleeping inside) while setting the house on fire, he is only guilty of homicide.
5. The accused committed the crime of Destructive |Arson with Intentional Mutilation.
The element of intentional mutilation is shown by deliberate act of beheading the victim before the setting the house on fire.
Eduardo Luayon
2020-11-17
ferdinand solas
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 863
Writing time: 114 minutes
Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com
Class: criminal law review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Prob. No. 1
As Judge I will convict the accused for simple arson under sec 3 par. 2, of P.D 1613.
Simple arson was the proper crime committed since under the law, destructive arson contemplates the malicious burning of structures, hotels, buildings,edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any persons or group of persons, while simple arson contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size not punished under destructive arson.
Here, what was set fired was the nipa roof of the victim, which clearly indicates that it is not one of those mentioned by law under destructive arson.
Thus, as Judge, I will convict the accused for simple arson.
Prob No. 2
The crime committed is arson resulting in homicide.
In the case of People vs. Abayon, the Supreme Court held that accordingly in cases where both the burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated, the main objective of the malefactor must be ascertained. If the main objective of the malefactor 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.
In the case, the accused-appelant was charged to have intentionally burned the house of one Robert Separa and as a consequence resulted to the death of one person. Considering that the main objective of the malefactor is burning and by reason or on occasion of burning death results, the crime committed is arson, the resulting homicide is absorbed.
The penalty shall be for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Prob. No. 3
The crime committed by the four is Arson under P.D 1613 attended by special aggravating circumtance of committed by a syndicate.
Simple arson as provided by P.D 1613 include the burning of any inhabited house or dwelling.
The law also provides that if the offense is planned or carried out by a group of three or more persons, the same was committed by a syndicate.
Here, the problem suggested that it is the dwelling house of the offended party Cleopatra, and committed by at least 3 persons.
Thus, the crime committed is simple arson attended by the aggravating circumtance of committed by a syndicate.
Yes, they may be convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
It is a settled rule that circumstancial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, and that direct evidence is not always necessary.
The Rules of Court on the law of Evidence recognizes that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction under certain circumtances.
In one case, the Supreme Court clarified that in order to sustain conviction based on circumtanstial evidence,it is essential that the circumtances presented constitutes an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused with the exclusion of the others as the guilty persons.
In the case, it appears that there is more than one circumtance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven and the combination of all the circumtances is such as to produce a conviction beyong reasonable doubt.
After her cocodryer is burning, the victim saw the 4 accused laughing, shouting and running with torch in their hands. The combination of all these circumtances constitutes an unbroken chain pointing to the 4 accused to exclusion of the others as the perpetrators of the crime.
For these reasons, the examinee submits that they may be convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
Prob. No. 4
In the first scenario, the crime committed is the separate crime of Arson and Homicide.
Under the law and existing jurisprudence, in order to determine the crime committed it is neccessary to determined the main objective of the malefactor.
In the given case, the main objective of Luis is to kill the victim and subsequently burned her house.
Hence, the crime committed is the separate crime of arson and homicide.
In the second scenario, the crime committed is only Arson, the resulting crime of Homicide being absorbed by Arson.
The main purpose of the malefactor is burning the house and as as a result or on occasion thereof death results. As such the crime committed is Arson.
Prob. No. 5
The crimes committed are Murder and Arson.
The RPC provides that the killing of a person, if not parricide or infanticide, qualifies the crime into murder when it is attended by circumtances under Art. 248 of the same Code.
Jurisprudence also provides that if the objective is likewise to kill a particular person and the offender has successfully done so, but as a means to cover up the killing, fire is resorted, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed, homicide/murder as the case maybe and arson.
In the present case, the killing was attended by a circumtance qualifying the killing into murder. The act of the accused of beheading the victim constitutes outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of the victim, a circumstance qualifying the killing into murder.
Thus, the crimes committed are the separate crimes of murder and arson.
ferdinand solas
2020-11-17
Florencio Saministrado Jr.
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 261
Writing time: 32 minutes
Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. I will convict the accused of simple arson because this involves the malicious burning of public and private structures including houses, dwelling and government buildings. In the case at bar the aggravating circumstance of syndicate which is group of 3 persons cannot be appreciated since the number of conspirators and their participation in the crime arson was no sufficiently allege in the information.
2. The law provides that if the main objective is the burning of the building and death results in the occassion of the burning of the building then the crime committed is arson and the death of one persons is absorbed, with a penalty of reclusion perpetua because of the aggravating circumstance of death, as in the case at bar.
3. The crime committed is simple arson, in the case at bar conspiracy is difficult to appreciate since from their act we cannot infer that they act in concert towards the fulfillment of their goal and that each one performed their respective duty in accomplishing the arson.
4. In the first scenario the crime committed by luis is murder and arson since the act of burning the house is to cover his other criminal act that is the murder of Maria. In the second scenario the crime committed is arson and the death of Maria is absorb since death results on the occassion of arson.
5. The crime committed is arson and homicide since the accused intended to burned the house of the victim in order to cover the other crime he committed in beheading the victim.
Florencio Saministrado Jr.
2020-11-17
Frilin Lomosad
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 368
Writing time: 51 minutes
Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. I will find the accused guilty of simple arson. Nothing in the information that would make the crime chargeable with destructive arson. There was no qualifying circumstances that was alleged in the information that would aggravate the crime.
2. The crime commited is Simple Arson with a penalty of Reclusion perpetua to death. In the case at bar, the crime of arson resulted to death. Hence, the penalty would be higher. Failure to properly describe the crime committed is a fatal defect in the information.
3. No, it is P1 and P3 that should be convicted of the crime of Arson. Circumstantial evidence may be accepted to convict an accuse for a crime. However, it must be clear and convincing and when considered in its entirety would qualify as evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In the case at bar, the mere laughing by P2 and the bad words uttered by P4 is not enough for them to be convicted of the same.
In the case of P1 and P3, it can be inferred from their acts that they committed the crime.
4. The crime committed by Luis are two separate crimes of murder and arson. The crime of murder was committed when he killed Maria after planning of doing the same. It can be gleaned from the facts that there was evident premeditation upon the killing as it rendered Maria to be so defenseless. The separate crime of Arson was committed when after the killing of Maria, he burned the small house of Maria to cover up the crime.
The crime would be different in the second scenario. The crime would only be Arson. In the case, the main objective is to burn the house, not the killing of Maria. However, the penalty thereof would be higher as it resulted to the death of Maria.
5. The accused commited the two separate crimes of Homicide and Arson. The crime of homicide was commited upon the killing of the victim. No treachery or evident premeditation involved in the killing. The crime of Arson was committed when after he killed the victim, he burned the house with the body of the victim with the intention to cover up the crime.
Frilin Lomosad
2020-11-17
Immanuel Granada
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 361
Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. As Judge, I will convict the accused of simple arson.
Simple arson is committed when (a) there is intentional burning and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house.
The facts reveal that both requisites are met, those are, the accused intended to burn the house and the house burned is inhabited as proven.
Further, under settled jurisprudence, simple arson may only be imposed if the arson committed is of less significance to social, economic, political, and national security.
2. The crime committed is simple arson.
Under P.D. 1613, simple arson is committed when (a) there is intentional burning and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
Here, there is an intentional burning of the house and the house is inhabited since the conflagration destroyed seven adjoining houses and killed one of its residents.
The penalty should be reclusion perpetua since a person died by reason of the above felonious act.
3. The four 4 Ps committed simple arson.
They can be convicted of arson despite no one saw the felonious acts. By implication, the four Ps committed the act of arson by their overt acts. Under settled jurisprudence. the uncorroborated testimony of even a single witness is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant a conviction if said testimony is credible.
4. In the first scenario, Luis committed the crimes of murder and arson.
Jurisprudence instructs that if the accused, if proven, killed his victim and subsequently resorted to put the dwelling ablaze to cover the corpus delicti, two separate and distinct crimes of murder and arson are committed.
In the second scenario, however, Luis only committed the simple crime of arson.
Law and jurisprudence, likewise, instructs that if a person intentionally burn the house or dwelling and by reason of such felonious act, someone died, the crime committed is simple arson. The resulting homicide is absorbed.
5. The accused committed the crimes of homicide and arson.
It is a well-entrenced rule that if a person kills another and to conceal the corpus delicti of killing, he burns the house, the crimes committed are two separate crimes: murder/homicide and arson.
Immanuel Granada
2020-11-17
Karl Rigo Andrino
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 691
Writing time: 52 minutes
Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. If I were the judge, I will convict the accused with the crime of simple arson. The elements of simple arson are there must be an intentional burning and what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. In this case, the accused intentionally burned the nipa house of Adelina Borbe and such nipa house burned is inhabited by Adelina and her family. It is clear that the elements of simple arson are present. Therefore, the acussed must be convicted for the crime of simple arson.
2. The crime committed is simple arson and the penalty should be reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court has distinguished destructive arson and simple arson. In destructive arson, the degree of such conflagration will seriously cause economic, financial and social injuries. Also, the presence of qualifying circumstance must be present as enumerated in Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code. In contrast, Simple arson is a lesser offense than destructive arson. Whereby it only requires that there is intentional burning and such intentional burning must be an inhabited place or dwelling. In this case, the intent of the accused must be carefully analyzed. Since the intent of the accused is simply to burn the 2-storey residential of Robert Separa, without knowing that it caused the conflagration of the 7 adjoining houses and resulted to the death of 1 person. Furthermore, in this case the qualifying circumstance enumerated Article 320 are not present. Therefore, the accused can only be charged of simple arson.
3. a.) The crime committed by the four accused is simple arson. There was intentional burning and what is intentionally burned is an inhabited place or dwelling. In this case, the four accused intentionally burned the house of Cleopatra and that the house is an inhabited dwelling of the victim.
b.) Yes. The accused can still be convicted by the presence of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact must draw an inference. It requires that there must more than one circumstance, the facts from which inference are derived have been established, and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the circumstantial evidence must rely on the prior and subsequent acts of the accused. The law expressly provides a presumption that the accused can be convicted of arson if their prior and subsequent acts lead to the commission of the crime. Hence, the accused can still be convicted of the crime.
4. a.) The crime committed by Luis is murder and arson. As rule in arson, if his intent is to kill the victim first amd the burning of the house is a mere afterthought, the crime committed is murder and arson.
b.) The crime will be different. The crime committed is arson with the special aggravating circumstance that Maria was killed by reason of the conflagration of the small house. The intent of the accuse is the determinative factor on what crime must filed. In this case, his intent was simply burning the house without knowing that Maria is inside the house. Thus, he is only liable for arson with special aggravating circumstance.
5. The crime committed is murder or homicide and arson. In this kind of case, the intent of the accused must be determined. If the intent of the accused is to kill the victim through conflagration, the crime is murder. If the intent of the accused is to kill the victim first and the burning of the house is an afterthought to conceal or hide the crime, the crime committed is murder and arson. If the intent of the accused is to simply burn the house without the knowledge that someone is inside the house and such act kills the inhabitant, the crime committed is arson with the special aggravating circumstance in section 5 of PD 1613. In this case, the intent of the accused is to kill the victim first and burning of the house is a mere afterthought to conceal the crime. Therefore, the crime committed is murder and arson.
Karl Rigo Andrino
2020-11-17
Lady Rubyge Denura
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 463
Writing time: 87 minutes
Email: ladybyge@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.) I will convict the accused guilty of Simple Arson penalized under Sec. 3, Par. 2 of PD 1613 for the act of intentionally burning an inhabited house or dwelling. Sec. 3, Par 2. provides the other cases of arson with a penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is inhabited house or dwelling. In simple arson it contemplates the malicious burningof public and private structures, reagrdless of the size which includes houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves amd other industrial establishments.
2.) The crime commited is Desctructive Arson under Article 320 of teh RPC. - the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed if the property burned one or more building or edifices, consequent to one single actof burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, commited on several or diffrent occasions. In the instant case, it is shown in th information that what was burned was two storey residential house that spread and destroyed seven other adjoining houses and in effect resulted to the death of a person, thus, the crime should be desctructive arson give the circumstances.
3.) No they cannot be convicted in the given circumstance. What was shown is merely circumstantial evidence which defines as the evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue through an interference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established and resort theretois essential when the lack of testimony would result in setting a felon free.
4.) In the first instance, where Luis stabbed Maria then burned her house, the crimes commited were homicide/murder and arson because if the objective, is likewise, to kill a person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to cover up the killing. In the second instance, it will be another crime. If Luis decided to burn the house not knowing that Maria is inside, the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, then the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is adsorbed.
5.) The crimes commited are murder/homicide and arson. 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 must be ascertained the main objective of the malefactor. In the case at bar, the accused beheaded the victim first before setting the latter's house on fire to hide or conceal the commision of the crime, thus, the objective is to kill the person and fire is resorted to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes commited - homicide/murder and arson.
Lady Rubyge Denura
2020-11-17
Liwayway Elumbaring
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 275
Writing time: 52 minutes
Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com
Class: criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.) If these allegations in the information are proven true by the prosecution, as Judge i will going to convict the accused of Destructive Arson. This is because it contemplates malicious burning of the structure which is the roof of the house of Adelina Borbe.
2.) The crime committed is arson. Murder or homicide is absorbed in arson as defined by law. As reflected above it was not shown that the main motive is to kill. The crime would only be ardon, the homicide being a mere consequence thereof,hence absorbed by arson. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if is imposed when death results.
3.) The four committed destructive arson for burning the cocodryer thou neither of the neighbor nor Cleopatra really saw any of the four P's lighting the house with their torch. However, they can be convicted of the same for showing malicious acts and uttering the words that could give hint to the crime.
4.) The crime committed by Luis is murder because the intent is to take the life of Maria by stabbing and then burned the house after the killing. The main object of the offender is to kill the victim therefore the crime is murder. However, when his intent is to burn the house not knowing that Maria was inside which is the cause of the death of the victim, the crime is arson and the homicide may be absorbed by the crime of arson.
5.) The crime would be murder since the object of the offender is to kill the victim. The crime in such case is murder only absorbing the arson.
Liwayway Elumbaring
2020-11-17
Marnelli Pastorfide
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 86
Writing time: 49 minutes
Email: moulan09@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. Given the circumstances above, the case of simple arson is present. In determining whether destructive or simple, the kind, character and location of the property burned will be taken into consideration. Hence, the simple case of arson will stand.
2. In the given circumstances, the proper case would still be simple arson complexed with homicide. The elements for simple arson are a) there is intentional burning and what was intentionally burned was inhabited. For the penalty, the imposable for simple arson is reclusion temporal.
3.
Marnelli Pastorfide
2020-11-17
Mendel Casao
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 357
Writing time: 48 minutes
Email: delsky056@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Answer:
Problem No. 1. As Judge in this case, I will convict the accused of the crime of simple arson under the Revised Penal Code as amended. In the same case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that the prosecution failed to allege in the information that arson was committed in an inhabited house. The accused in this case cannot be convicted of destructive arson because of the failure of the prosecution to allege it. Therefore, it is proper to convict the said accused of simple arson.
Problem No. 2. In this case the crime committed by the accused is "destructive arson" as provided under the Revised Penal Code as amended. It was clearly alleged in the information that the house burned was a residential house of the victim. A residential house is an inhabited house hence, the crime committed was destructive arson and not simple arson. The proper penalty to be imposed in this case should be Reclusion Perpetua to Death.
Problem No. 3. In the case at bar, having no evidence to prove conspiracy against the four Ps, P1 and P3 can be convicted through circumstantial evidence of arson. P1 running away with a torch in his hand together with P3 can be held liable because an act of fleeing is deemed as an act of guilt. P2 who is seen laughing has no criminal liablity and P4 who uttered "na, galot man god ka" is also not criminally liable for arson.
Problem No. 4. In the case presented, after Luis has stabbed Maria to death and then burned the house with Maria's body in it, the crime committed by Luis is Murder under the Revised Penal Code.
But if Luis burned the house not knowing that Maria was inside sleeping in her room and as a result Maria was killed, the crime committed by Luis now is Arson under the Revised Penal Code as amended.
Problem No. 5. The crime committed is Murder. If an accused killed his victim and then burned the victim's house together with the victim's body in order to hide or conceal the crime, the crime committed is Murder.
Mendel Casao
2020-11-17
Oscar Abadies Jr
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 374
Writing time: 36 minutes
Email: oabadiesjr@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R
1. As the judge, I can convict the accused with simple arson.
Under the law, simple arson contemplates the malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size which is not punished under destructive arson.
In this case, since only the nipa roof incurred damage, the same act is considered as simple arson.
2. The crime committed by the offender is destructive arson.
Under the law, destructive arson contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military government or commercial establishment by any person.
In this case, since there is no showing that the main intention of the offender is to kill a person, then the act of setting the houses on fire which resulted to the demise of one person only constitute destructive arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed.
The offender, in this case, may be meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
3. There is no crime committed because the corpus delicti is wanting in this case, not to mention that the elements cannot be proven in this case.
Corpus delicti is wanting since the crime of arson cannot be proved to have occurred since nobody sees the offender committing the said crime.
The elements of arson include the intentional burning and what is intentionally burned is a house, building, establishment, among others. Thus, the four Ps cannot be convicted.
4. The crime committed is murder and arson.
It has been settled that if the main intention of the perpetrator is to kill someone, and in doing so, fire is resorted to conceal the crime, then such offender is liable for murder and arson, respectively.
However, if the main intention is to burn a house and death resulted by such act, then the offender is liable for arson only and the resulting death is absorbed.
5. The accused committed the crime of murder and arson.
Murder is committed since the accused killed the victim beforehand by beheading the latter, and the killing is not parricide or infanticide and there is presence of qualifying circumstance of cruelty.
Arson is also committed by the accused since he burned the house of the victim in order to conceal the crime of murder.
Oscar Abadies Jr
2020-11-17
Pamela Rubi-Anito
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 436
Writing time: 59 minutes
Email: pamela12813@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
PROBLEM No. 1
If I were the judge, I would convict the accused of the crime of simple arson.
Under PD 1613, simple arson contemplates malicious burning of public and private structures, regardless of size not punished under destructive arson. To be convicted of simple arson, there must be intentional burning and what was burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
Here, what is intentionally burned was the nipa house of Borbe. Hence, the accused can be held liable for simple arson under the law.
PROBLEM No. 2
The crime committed is destructive arson under Article 30 of the Revised Penal Code and is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum to death.
The law provides that destructive arson is committed by any person who shall burn one or more buildings, as a result of a single act or simultaneous burnings. Moreover, destructive arson is considered as a heinous crime because of the greater degree of perversity and destruction.
Here, the burning caused a massive destruction of seven adjoining house and death of one person. Hence, the accused can be held liable for destructive arson under the law.
PROBLEM No. 3
Yes, the four Ps can be convicted of simple arson under PD PD 1613.
Despite the fact that no one had seen any of the four accused lighting the house with a torch, it can be inferred from the circumstances that the four Ps intentionally burned the house of Cleopatra.
PROBLEM No. 4
Luis committed the crime of murder when he killed Maria.
Jurisprudence and laws provide that when the intention of the offender is to kill and burning is an after thought, the crime committed is murder or homicide. When the intention of the accused is to burn and someone is killed, the crime is arson.
Here, Luis killed Maria first before burning her house. Hence, he committed the crime of Murder. Arson is absorbed.
On the other hand, if Luis intention is to burn Maria's house and Maria died, the crime committed is arson. The death of Maria is a mere consequence and is absorbed by arson.
PROBLEM No. 5
The crime committed by the accused is Murder and Arson.
Jurisprudence provides that when the intention is to kill and fire is resorte to as a means to cover the killing, there are two separate crimes committed, homicide/murder and arson.
Here, it was clear from the facts that the accused killed or beheaded the victim first. It was also proven that the accused burned the house in order to hide the killing. Hence, the accused committed the crimes of murder and arson.
Pamela Rubi-Anito
2020-11-17
Paula Bianca Eguia
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 620
Writing time: 57 minutes
Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.
The accused should be convicted with the crime of simple arson. The law provides that arson is committed when there is intentional burning of an inhabited house or dwelling. As the facts attendant to the case shows that the accused maliciously set on fire the nipa roof the house of Adelina Borbe, then the accused shall be liable for the crime of simple arson as all the elements of the crime are present in this case.
2.
The crime committed is simple arson and the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The law states that arson is committed when there is intentional burning and what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Further if by reason or on the occasion of arson death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. The facts attendant to this case shows that the crime committed is only simple arson and the death that resulted by reason or on occasion of such arson shall be absorbed and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua as provided under the law.
3.
The four Ps can be convicted by the crime of arson. The corpus delicti of the crime of arson is complied with if there is proof of the bare occurence of the fire and with intentional burning of such property, in which case the burning of the coco dryer owned by Cleopatra. They can still be convicted of the same offense since circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven and the combination of all the circumstanes results in a moral certainty that indeed the accused is the one who committed the crime. Although no one saw the four lighting the house, the combination of the circumstances, that which the actions of the four Ps are interwoven in such a way that they are guilty of burning the coco dryer of Cleopatra. Hence, all four Ps shall be guilty of arson.
4.
The crimes committed by Luis are murder and arson. Jurisprudence have held that when the evident premeditation on the part of the offender to kill another and in fact the offender had done so, then he is guilty of the crime of murder. Further, the law provides that a person who shall burn any dwelling can be charged with the crime of arson. As Mario stabbed and killed Maria after which he burned her small house, he committed the two separate crimes of murder and arson.
If Luis only intended to burn the house not knowing that Maria was inside her room, the crime committed will only be arson. The law prescribes that if the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building but death results by reason or on occasion of arson, then the crime committes is only arson and the homicide shall be absorbed.
5.
The crimes committed by the accused are murder and arson as separate and distinct offenses. The law provides that if the objective of the offender is to kill a particular person and he has in fact consummated such act, but fire was is resorted to as means to cover up and conceal the killing, then there are two separate crimes committed, murder and arson. In this case, the accused should be charged with the crime of murder since he committed the killing with cruelty and by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the victim as the same was beheaded. The accused should also be held liable with the crime of arson as a separate offense he burned the house of the victim with the intention of concealing the commission of killing.
Paula Bianca Eguia
2020-11-17
Perigrino Varquez
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 575
Writing time: 44 minutes
Email: peridoy@yahoo.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. As a Judge, I will convict the accused for the crime of simple arson only. The facts of the information provide that the accused's motive was only to cause damage on the nipa hut of Adelina B. Borbe. Under the law, if the motive of the accused was merely to cause the destruction of the victim's house by burning and there is no other crime committed it is only a simple arson. Therefore, the conviction is only for a simple arson.
2. The crime committed by the accused is a special complex crime of arson with homicide. In the given case, the accused set on fire a two-storey residential house of Robert Separa which spread and destroyed seven (7) adjoining houses and resulted to the death of one person. The effect of the burning on the 7 houses should not be treated as separate offenses because his original design was only to burn the house of Robert Separa. Under the law, the accused should only be punished on the crime which he intended to commit and that is simple arson. However, in the course of the destruction other houses were also destroyed as the fire spread to the adjoining houses hence, in the eyes of the law the accused is only liable for one crime of arson with homicide which is a special complex crime.
3. The crime committed by the four Ps is malicious mischief. The facts of the case will show that the burning of the cocodryer was really done by P1 as he was holding a torch in his hand when he ran away. He was really the suspect in the first place why would he run away when the cocodryer was burning and he was holding a torch. The destruction of the cocodryer will only give rise to the crime of malicious mischief.
4. Luis committed the crime of destructive arson and murder. In this case, the original design of Luis was to kill Maria for she turned down his proposal to be his girlfriend. Because of this, he took revenge by planning to kill her which he succeeded in killing her which is murder. To conceal the body of Maria, Luis burned the house and this is a separate crime of arson. Hence, he committed two (2) crimes murder and destructive arson which he purposely intended in order to conceal the body of Maria. His acts show his criminal perversity in committing the crime and he should be penalized by a higher penalty of destructive arson.
If he merely burn the house not knowing that Maria was sleeping he should be penalized for the crime of simple arson only and the death of Maria should be complexed. The rationale of the law because his intention is only to commit the crime of simple arson and in the eyes of the law. he only committed one crime.
5. The accused committed the crimes of murder and destructive arson. It is apparent from the facts of the case, that his original design was only to commit the crime of murder and in order to conceal or hide the body of the victim, he burned the house. As provided by law because of his perversity to commit the crime he should be held liable to the crime of destructive arson which is severely punished than that of a simple arson. Therefore, the accused committed two separate crimes of murder and destructive arson.
Perigrino Varquez
2020-11-17
Renante Carumba
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 520
Writing time: 54 minutes
Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Batasta
1.
I will convict the accused for the crime of Simple Arson. to be convicted of Arson, the law provides two essential requisites, one, The act of burning, which is consummated and two, the house was inhabited. Here, the fact that that was burned was only the nipa roof of Adelina is of no moment becase in Arson, the slightest burn of the house will already consummate the crime and besides. Adelina B. Borbe actually resided therein, which is considered as inhabited.
2.
Accused appelant commited the crime of Destructive Arson. The death of one person cannot aggravate nor complex the crime./ The law looks into the intention of the accused, that is, if the intention of the accused is only to burn the house and someone died as a result of the burning, the crime is only Arson. If the intention of the accused is to kill someone inside the house and the accused burn the house as a means to kill someone inside, the crime is only Murder becuase in law, there is no complex crime of Arson with Murder or Murder with Arson. Thus, being a destructive arson the pena;lty is Reclusion Perpetua/
3. Four Ps committed the Crime of Qualified Arson. The law provides a stiffer penalty when what was burn as a cocodryer, the fact that nobody saw any of four Ps lighted the house is immaterial because it can be inferred P1 was who was holding the torch ran away together with P3. That while P2 and P4 particiapation is only limited to shouting and laughing, they can still be liable for qualified arson becuase taken altogether the acft four Ps. there was unity in intention, purpose and design.
4.
a. Luis committed the crimes of Murder and Arsononly, the arson was resorted only for the purspose of the concealing the corpus delicti. In crime of Arson or Murder, the law looks into the intention of the accused. if the intention was to kill and fire was used as means, the crime is only Murder. if the intention was to burn only the house and as a result someone dies, the crime is only Arson. In the instant case.Luis did not resorted to arson in killing Maria, the burning was only adopted to conceal the corpus delicti, Hence, Luis committed the crimes of Arson and Murder.
b. No it will not be the same crime. this time Luis committed the Arson only. well-settled that when an accused burned a house and as a consequnce, someone dies, the crime is only Arson because the law only consider the intention of the afccused. Thus, Luis only commited the crime of Arson becuase there is no such crime of Arson with Murder or Murder with Arson in law.
5.
The accused committed two crimes. one for Murder and the other for Arson. Here the arson was resorted to not as a means of killing the victime but as a means of inten tionally concealing the corpus delicti. At the time of the burning, the victim was already dead, accused already killed him by beheading the latter.
Renante Carumba
2020-11-17
Rey Gavino Cadag
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 200
Writing time: 30 minutes
Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. The accused will be convicted of Simple Arson because the main objective of his feloneous act is to set fire the nipa hut of the Adelina Borbe.
2. The crime committed by the accused is Destructive Arson because the crime resuted in multiple houses that were burned and the death of one person is a crime of Homicide is aborbed.
3. Yes, the four (4) persons will convicted in conspiracy to commit the crime of Arson because all the circumstancial evidence link with one another that form a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. they are guity of the crime of Arson.
4. Luis committed the crime of Murder and a separate crime of Arson because his objective is kill Maria and with the agrravating circumstance of nighttime, treachery, the crime is Murder. And also Arson because the setting of fire is to cover the crime in killing the victim.
5. The accused must be convicted of Murder and a separate crime of Arson because the crime of Arson is neccesary included in the crime of Destructive Arson and because of his plea, the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance from Destructive Arson to the crime of Arson.
Rey Gavino Cadag
2020-11-17
ROJEAN CULANAG
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 669
Writing time: 65 minutes
Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com
Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA
1.
If I were the judge, I will convict the accused of simple arson.
Under the law, to be liable for simple arson, two elements must concur, to wit:
a.) There is intentional burning; and
b.) What is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
Here, the two elements are present. First, based on the facts the burning was clearly intentional and Lastly, the structure burned was a nipa roof of a house owned by ADELINA BORBE which is an inhabited dwelling.
Thus, conviction of simple arson is proper.
2.
The crime committed is only simple arson and the penalty should be reclusion perpetua to death since someone died by reason or on the occasion of the arson.
The two elements of simple arson are present in this case. First, there is intentional burning and second, what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
The fact that the act of burning spread and destroyed seven adjoining houses is immaterial and will not changed the nature of the crime as simple arson because this crime covers the burning of public and private structure regardless of size.
Hence, the crime committed by the accused is only simple arson. However, since death occured by reason or on the occasion of arson and the penalty to be impossed should be reclusion perpetua to death.
3.
The crime committed by four Ps is qualified arson considering that all them acted in unison to commit the said crime.
Arson is qualified when what is burned is cocodryer or a plantation.
Here, the facts of the case clearly show that the four Ps acted in unison in burning the cocodryer. The fact that none of the neighbors saw the four lightning the house with torch will not exempt them from criminal liability because their guilt can still be proven by circumstantial evidence.
4.
Luis committed the crime of murder.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of murder is committed by any person who shall kill another with evident premiditation.
Here, the facts of the case show that the killing was attended by evident premiditation because Luis clearly planned to kill Maria.
The fact that Luis burned the small house of Maria after killing the latter will not make him liable for another crime of arson because the intention of Luis was not to burned the house. His intention was clearly to kill Maria and burning was merely sought by Luis to conceal the crime.
Thus, Luis committed the crime of murder only.
If Luis decided to burn the house then he will be liable for simple arson only even if Maria was also burned with it.
In the crime of arson, the law considers the intention of the accused. If the intention of the accused is to kill someone and burning was resorted to as a means of committing the killing or as a means of concealing the killing, then he will be liable for murder only. However, if the intention of the accused is to burn the house, then he will be liable for arson even if someone was killed with it.
Here, since the intention of Luis was not to kill Maria but only to burn his house, then he is liable only for simple arson.
5.
The accused committed the crime of murder only.
In the crime of arson, the law considers the intention of the accused. If the intention of the accused is to kill someone and burning was resorted to as a means of committing the killing or as a means of concealing the killing, then he will be liable for murder only. However, if the intention of the accused is to burn the house, then he will be liable for arson even if someone was killed with it.
Here, since the the intention of the accused is only to kill the victim and arson was resoted to as a means to conceal the crime, then the crime committed by the accused is murder only.
ROJEAN CULANAG
2020-11-17
Vera Nataa
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 389
Writing time: 53 minutes
Email: vnataa@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Problem 1
As judge, I will convict the accused with a crime of simple arson. The elements of the crime are present. There is intentional burning and the property burned is an inhabited house. It is important to distinguish simple arson from destructive arson. The distinction lies in the nature of the crime, and the degree of perversity and viciousness.
Problem 2
The crime commited is arson. It is a well settled rule that if the main objective is the burning of the house but death results on the occasion of arson, the crime committed is arson only, homicide is absorbed. The penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
Problem 3
The crime committed is arson. Yes, they can be convicted. Direct evidence is not the only basis to prove their guilt. Even though her neighbor did not saw any of the four lighting the house with a torch, the crime can still be proven by circumstantial evidence. In this case, while Cleopatra was inside her house, busy with her cooking, she heard some neighbors shouting that her cocodryer is burnin, she went out and saw P1 running away with a torch in his hand, P2 laughing at her, P3 running away together with P1, while P4 was shouting at her. These combined circumstances can prove, with moral certainty, that the crime of arson was committed by the accused.
Problem 4
Luis commited a crime of homicide or murder, as the case may be. If it can be proven that the killing was premeditated and that there was treachery, the crime is murder, otherwise it is homicide. Also, a separate crime of arson is committed. In case Luis intended to kill Maria and after killing her, he burned her house, there are two separate crimes of arson and homicide/murder.
If Luis decided to burn the house not knowing that Maria was there sleeping inside her room, and while the house burned, Maria was also burned with it, the crime is only arson, the killing is absorbed.
Problem 5
In this case, there are two separate crimes of homicide and destructive arson. Since it was established that the accused first beheaded the victim before setting the latter's house on fire, the main objective of the offender was to kill the victim, and to cover up his crime, he resorted to arson.
Vera Nataa
2020-11-17
Virgilio Encabo
Exam: QUIZ IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW NOV. 17, 2020
Word count: 374
Writing time: 59 minutes
Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com
Class: Criminal law
Teacher: Judge Bastasa
Answer no. 1. Arson contemplates the malicious burning of property. In this case, if the main objective is the burning of the property, i.e. the nipa house of Adelina Borbe, to the latter's damage and prejudice, then the accused can be convicted of Arson only, even if death results by reason or on the occasion of arson. Here, there was no showing that death resulted in the burning of the property. Hence, the accused are liable for arson.
Answer no.2. The crime committed is destructive arson. Destructive Arson is committed when one or more buildings are burned as a consequence of a single act of burning or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasion. The death of of one person is absorbed in the crime committed. The penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. However, death penalty can not be imposed due to its suspension as provided under the law.
Answer no. 3. Four Ps committed the crime of Arson as the accused maliciously burned the property (cocodryer) of Cleopatra. They can be convicted even if neither Cleopatra and any of her neighbor saw the four lighting the house with a torch because the gravamen for arson is the burning of the property, structure or edifice.
Answer no. 4. Luis can be held liable for murder qualified by means of fire. Murder is committed when any person, not falling within the provisions of article 246, shall kill another by means of fire. Here, Luis committed murder as he planned the killing of Maria. If Luis decided to burn the house not knowing that Maria is sleeping, he can be liable for the crime of arson even if death results by reason or on the occasion of arson because here, the main objective of Luis is to burn the house not to kill Maria.
Answer no. 5. In the given case, since it was established that the accused first beheaded the victim before setting the house on fire, the main objective of the aacused therefore, was to kill the victim and the fire that was resorted only as a means to cover the killing. Hence, the accused can be liable for two separate crime of murder and arson.
Virgilio Encabo
No comments:
Post a Comment