Digest Authors:[Please do not change this] CRIMINAL LAW 2
PEOPLE V. MALNGAN
Digest by: Manipon, K
PETITIONER: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RESPONDENT: EDNA MALNGAN y MAYO, appellant
DOCTRINE: There is no complex crime of arson with (multiple) homicide.
In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what
crime/crimes was/were perpetratedwhether arson, murder or arson and
homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor.
FACTS:
1. Brgy. Chairman Remigios group discovered that a fire gutted the house of
Roberto Separa, Sr.
2. Gruta, a tanod, reported that shortly before the occurrence of the fire, he
saw Edna, one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa, Sr., coming out
of the house of the latter.
3. Mendoza, neighbor of Separa and whose house was also burned,
identified accused-appellant EDNA. Upon inspection, a disposable lighter
was found inside EDNAs bag. Thereafter, EDNA confessed to Bernardo in
the presence of multitudes of angry residents that she set her employers
house on fire because she had not been paid her salary for about a year
and that she wanted to go home to her province but her employer told her
to just ride a broomstick in going home.
4. When Mendoza went to the San Lazaro Fire Station to give her sworn
statement, she had the opportunity to ask EDNA at the latters detention
cell how she burned the house, EDNA told her: Naglukot ako ng
maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis ko sa
ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay.
5. When interviewed by a reporter of ABS-CBN, EDNA was heard by SPO4
Danilo Talusan as having admitted the crime and even narrated the
manner how she accomplished it. SPO4 Talusan was able to hear the
same confession, this time at his home, while watching the television
program True Crime hosted by Gus Abelgas.
Group Number:
6. The fire resulted in [the] destruction of the house of Separa and other
adjoining houses and the death of Separa, his wife and their four (4)
children.
ISSUES:
1. Did accused commit complex crime of arson with (multiple) homicide? NO.
2. Which kind of arson is EDNA guilty of? SIMPLE ARSON.
RULING + RATIO:
1. NO. Crime is simply arson.
There are two (2) laws that govern the crime of arson where death results
therefromArticle 320 of RPC, as amended by RA 7659, and Section 5 of
PD No. 1613.
Art. 320 with respect to destructive arson, and the provisions of PD No.
1613 respecting other cases of arson provide that if by reason of or on the
occasion of arson, death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
shall be imposed. The crime of homicide is absorbed. The laws provide
only one penalty for the commission of arson, whether considered
destructive or otherwise, where death results therefrom. The raison d'tre
is that arson is itself the end and death is simply the consequence.
(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 committedhomicide/murder and arson.
The instant case falls under (a). From a reading of the body of the
Information:
Digest Authors:[Please do not change this] CRIMINAL LAW 2
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, with intent to cause damage, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately set fire upon the two-
storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA x x x that by reason
and on the occasion of the said fire [the victims] sustained burn injuries
which were the direct cause of their death immediately thereafter
Edna is being charged with the crime of arson. It is clear from her intent
was merely to destroy her employers house through the use of fire.
2. SIMPLE ARSON. There are two (2) categories of the crime of arson: 1)
destructive arson under Art. 320 and 2) simple arson, under PD 1613. Said
classification is based on the kind, character and location of the property
burned, regardless of the value of the damage caused.
Art. 320 contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public
and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft,
factories and other military, government or commercial
establishments by any person or group of persons. On the other hand,
PD 1613 contemplates the malicious burning of public and private
Group Number:
structures, regardless of size, not included in Art. 320 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. Simple Arson
contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and
national security implications than Destructive Arson. However, acts falling
under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into Destructive Arson
depending on the qualifying circumstances present.
As stated in the body of the Information, Edna was charged with having
intentionally burned the two-storey residential house of Robert Separa.
Said conflagration likewise spread and destroyed seven (7) adjoining
houses. As it was proved, at the trial, she may be convicted, and
sentenced accordingly, of the crime of simple arson.
DISPOSITION: Edna guilty of simple arson.
NOTES:
In the crime of arson, the identities of the victims are immaterial in that
intent to kill them particularly is not one of the elements of the crime.