I am a fire officer, but I’ve never been assigned

as fire arson investigator nor took up any fire

arson investigation course.

The information provided is for educational

purposes, for class discussion only and shall not
be legally binding with the Bureau of Fire
Protection.
• Know the meaning of arson and its elements

• Know the laws that impose punishment on the

crimes of arson

• Know the difference between such laws

• Know the stages of execution of the crime of

arson
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, Per Quisumbing, J.)
1. Republic Act 3815 also known as, Revised Penal
Code (RPC); Articles 320 – 326-b – December 8,
1930

2. Presidential Decree No. 1613 – March 7, 1979,

repealed Articles 320 – 326-b of the RPC

3. Presidential Decree No. 1744 – November

11,1980, reinstated Article 320 of the RPC
4. Republic Act 7659 – December 13, 1993,
imposition of death penalty to heinous crimes
such as arson

5. Republic Act 9346 – June 24, 2006,

prohibition of imposition of death penalty on
crimes of arson
Section 1. Arson. Any person who burns or
sets fire to the property of another shall be
punished by Prision Mayor.

The same penalty shall be imposed when a

person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the
life or property of another.
Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:

1. Any building used as offices of the government

or any of its agencies;

2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;

3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil

well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:

4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop,

grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;

5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central;

and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf
or warehouse.
Section 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in
Arson. The penalty in any case of arson shall be
imposed in its maximum period;

1. If committed with intent to gain;

2. If committed for the benefit of another;

3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred

towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned;
Section 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in
Arson. The penalty in any case of arson shall be
imposed in its maximum period;
4. If committed by a syndicate.

The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is

planned or carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons.
Section 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death
shall be imposed.
Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the
following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:

1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than

one part of the building or establishment.

2. If substantial amount of flammable substances

or materials are stored within the building note
necessary in the business of the offender nor for
household us.
Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the
following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:

3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other

flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers thereof,
or any mechanical, electrical, chemical, or
electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or
ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found
in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property.
Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the
following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:

4. If the building or property is insured for

substantially more than its actual value at the time
of the issuance of the policy.

5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire

insurance policy more than two fires have
occurred in the same or other premises owned or
under the control of the offender and/or insured.
Section 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the
following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of
the effects insured and stored in a building or
property had been withdrawn from the premises
except in the ordinary course of business.
7. If a demand for money or other valuable
consideration was made before the fire in
exchange for the desistance of the offender or for
the safety of the person or property of the victim.
Section 7. Conspiracy to commit Arson. Conspiracy
to commit arson shall be punished by Prision
Mayor in its minimum period.

Section 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The

building which is the object of arson including the
land on which it is situated shall be confiscated
and escheated to the State, unless the owner
thereof can prove that he has no participation in
nor knowledge of such arson despite the exercise
of due diligence on his part.
P.D. No. 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to
326-B of The Revised Penal Code remains
the governing law for Simple Arson.

1. There is intentional burning; and

2. What is intentionally burned is an

inhabited house or dwelling.
Article 320 Destructive Arson. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death shall be imposed upon any person
who shall burn:

1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices,

consequent to one single act of burning, or
as result of simultaneous burnings, or
committed on several or different
occasions;
2. Any building of public or private ownership,
devoted to the use of the public in general, or
where people usually gather or congregated for a
definite purpose such as but not limited to official
governmental function or business, private
transaction, commerce, trade, worship, meetings
and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite
purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels,
transient dwellings, public conveyance or stops or
terminals, regardless of whether the offender had
knowledge that there are persons in said building or
edifice at the time it is set on fire, and regardless
also of whether the building is actually inhabited or
not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or convenience, or public
use, entertainment or leisure.

4. Any building, factory, warehouse

installation and any appurtenances thereto,
which are devoted to the service of public
utilities.
5. Any building, the burning of which is for the purpose
of concealing or destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing
bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from
insurance .

Irrespective of the application of the above

enumerated qualifying circumstances , the penalty of
death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons
or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their
purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or
the edifice, or the burning merely constitutes an overt
act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death shall also be
imposed upon any person who shall burn:

(a) Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse

or military powder or fireworks factory,
ordinance storehouse, archives or general
museum of the government.
 (b) In an inhabited place, any
storehouse or factory of inflammable or
explosive materials.

If as a consequence of the commission of

any of the acts penalized under this Article,
death or injury results, or any valuable
documents, equipment, machineries,
apparatus, or other valuable properties
were burned or destroyed, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed."
Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code,
as amended is known as Destructive
Arson

1. There is intentional burning; and

2. What is intentionally burned are

those enumerated in Article 320 of the
RPC.
 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 circumstances
surrounding it. Evidence of this type is part of the res
gestae. (People v. Soriano, supra.)
☻ 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.)
☺ P.D. No. 1613 contemplates the malicious
burning of of public and private
structures, regardless of size, not
included in Art. 320, as amended which
include houses, dwellings, government
buildings, farms, mills, plantations,
railways, bus stations, airports, wharves
and other industrial establishments.
(People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July
29, 2003, Per Bellosillo, J.)
☻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.”
(Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28,
2008, Per Reyes, R.T., J.)
☺The acts committed under P.D. No. 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.)
PP v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006, Per
Chico-Nazario, J.)

Malngan deliberately set fire to a house in City

of Manila in which the fire resulted in the death of six
individuals who were sleeping inside the house.

If the main object of the offender is to kill by means of fire,

the offense is murder. But if the main objective is the burning
of the building, the resulting homicide may be absorbed by
the crime of arson.
PP v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 172468, October 15, 2008, Per
Leonardo-De Castro, J.)

Villacorta deliberately set fire on a residential

house located at No. 603 Sulucan St., Sampaloc,
Manila, by then and there pouring kerosene on a
mattress placed in a room and ignited it with a lighter;
that on the occasion and by reason of said fire, Rodolfo
Cabrera sustained burn injuries which were the direct
and immediate cause of his death.

The crime of Destructive Arson with Homicide defined and

penalized under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code which
punishes arson where death resulted as consequence thereof.
PP v. Abayon, G.R. No. 204891, September 14, 2016, Per Brion, J.)

Abayon’s intent was merely to destroy his family's

apartment through the use of fire. The resulting deaths
that occurred, therefore, should be absorbed by the
crime of arson and only increases the imposable penalty
to reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Section 5
of P.D. No. 1613.

There is no complex crime of arson with (multiple) homicide.

PP v. Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, Per Martires, J.)
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.
PP v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 70222, February 27, 1987, Per Cruz, J.)

Ancheta is as guilty as his companions of the

crime of arson, even if it be conceded that he was not
the one who actually poured the kerosene and ignited it
to burn Teresa Gorospe's house. When there is a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and visits
equal guilt upon every conspirator.
The crime of robbery with arson, committed in conspiracy with
two other persons. In the case of robbery with arson, it is
essential that the robbery precedes the arson. There must be an
intent to commit robbery and no killing, rape or intentional
mutilation should be committed in the course of the robbery, or
else, arson will only be considered an aggravating
circumstance of the crime actually committed.
PP v Hernandez, G.R. No. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956, Per
Concepcion, J.)

Amado V. Hernandez, was charged with the

crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and
robberies. The information filed against him alleged
that he conspired with others to commit acts of
murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned
destruction of property in furtherance of the rebellion.
Arson, murder and robbery are mere ingredients of the
crime of rebellion, as means "necessary" for the
perpetration of the offense. Such common offenses are
absorbed or inherent in the crime of rebellion.
Consummated Arson - When all the elements
necessary for execution of arson and
accomplishment are present.

Any charring of the wood of a building,

whereby the fiber of the wood is destroyed, is
sufficient. It is not necessary that the wood should
be ablaze.
If any part of the house, no matter how small,
is burned, even with partial or incomplete
damages, the crime of arson is consummated.
Attempted Arson - When the offender commences
the commission of arson by directly overt act but
does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce arson by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance

When a person had poured gasoline under the

house of another and was about to strike a match
to set the house on fire when he was apprehended,
he was guilty of attempted arson.
Is there a frustrated arson?
Is there a frustrated arson?
Is there a frustrated arson?
Frustrated Arson - When the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce
arson as a result but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of
the perpetrator’s will.

An accused soaked a jute sack and a rag

with kerosene oil, set them on fire and placed
them beside an upright of the house. However,
the fire had been put out on time. The offenses
committed is not consummated arson because
no part of the building had been burned. He is
liable for frustrated arson.
(US v. Valdes, G.R. No.14128, December 10, 1918)
On Frustrated Arson, we have this old case of
Valdes, 1918, 12 years prior the RPC took effect in
1930.
What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?
1. Rape, since x x x
2. Arson, because this is punished as to its result, hence, the
moment burning of the property occurs, even if slight, the
offense is committed.
3. Corruption of public officers, x x x
4. Adultery, x x x
5. Physical Injury, x x x
(Atty. Leonor Boado,, Notes and Cases on the RPC, 2004, p.
43)
Is there a frustrated arson?

No, there is no frustrated arson.

The case of US v. Valdes, an old case of frustrated
arson ruled before The Revised Penal Code (RPC) took
effect.
Since the case of US v. Valdes ruled12 years prior the
enactment of the RPC, but the latter no longer admit the
frustrated stage of the crime of arson, then the former is no
longer the controlling jurisprudence.
Thus, there is no crime of frustrated arson.
 Article 320 of the RPC is Destructive Arson
 PD No. 1613 is Simple Arson
 Intent to set properties on fire is indispensable
element in
the crime of arson
 There is no complex crime of arson with homicide
 If the main of objective of the offender is to set fire
but death results in reason of arson, homicide is
absorbed by arson
 Arson can be committed in conspiracy
 Arson is inherent in the crime of rebellion
 Any charring of wood, regardless of completeness is
considered as consummated arson
 There is attempted arson but no frustrated arson
☼ Criminal Law Book I and II by Reyes
☼ Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. I, 2019
☼ Boado,, Notes and Cases on the RPC, 2004,
☼ www. lawphil.net
☼ www.legalresource.ph/arson-destructive-a320-
rpc-simple-pd-1613
☼ www.respicio.ph/commentaries/understanding-
frustrated-arson-in-philippine-law-legal
implications-and-penalties
☼ Bureau of Fire Protection – Navotas City,
Intelligence and Investigation Unit
I hope you learned and had a great time
throughout the discussion .

Thank you for listening!