Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Balilihan Campus
Magsija, Balilihan, Bohol
Tel. No.: (038) 422-0712 | balilihan@[Link]
Vision: A premier Science and Technology university for the formation of world-class virtuous human resource for sustainable development in Bohol and the country.
Mission: BISU is committed to provide quality higher education in the arts and sciences, as well as in professional and technological fields;
undertake research and development, and extension services for the sustainable development of Bohol and the Country.

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CDI6N- FIRE PROTECTION AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

ARSON CASES IN THE PHILIPPINES

“CASE DIGEST”

2nd Semester
A.Y. 2022-2023

Prepared by:

SHIELA MAE H. LANSANG

BSCRIM 3-A
INTRODUCTION

Arson, crime commonly defined by statute as the willful or malicious damage or

destruction of property by means of fire or explosion.

Arson is the crime of willfully and deliberately setting fire to or charring property.
Although the act of arson typically involves buildings, the term can also refer to the
intentional burning of other things, such as motor vehicles, watercraft, or forests. The
crime is typically classified as a felony, with instances involving a greater degree of risk
to human life or property carrying a stricter penalty. Arson which results in death can be
further prosecuted as manslaughter or murder.

Arson referred to the burning of another person’s dwellings under circumstances that
endangered human life. Modern statutes have expanded this definition so that arson
now includes the wrongful burning of any public or private property.

Most jurisdictions have divided arson statutes into two or more degrees, reserving the
heavier punishments for burnings that pose a danger to human life. Such acts generally
include the burning of vehicles, bridges, and forests as well as habitable dwellings (e.g.,
houses, stores, office buildings, and factories).

In nearly all countries, an arsonist may be prosecuted for murder if someone dies as a

result of the act, even if the intention to kill is absent. Some jurisdictions also impose a
higher penalty for arson committed for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence
of another crime.
CASE DIGEST

01 People v Murcia (Ayesha)

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs
JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA, Accused-Appellant.
 March 9, 2010
 Perez, J.
 

FACTS: 

● Eulogio Quilates (Eulogio) is the owner of a two-storey house in Paringao, Bauang, La

Union.

● occupants of his house:

 sister Felicidad Quilates (Felicidad)

 another sister Alicia Manlupig (Alicia)
 nephew Herminio Manlupig (Herminio)
 appellant, Jessie Murcia, adopted son of Felicidad

● around 3:30 p.m. of 24 March 2004, appellant was drinking with his cousin Herminio
and brothers-in-law Joey Viduya and Ricky Viduya (Ricky) in front of their house. Appell
ant and Herminio were arguing over the matter of caring for Felicidad while the latter
was confined in the hospital. Appellant was then seen going inside the house to get a
bolo. When he emerged from the house 10mins later, he ran after Herminio but the
latter managed to escape unscathed. Appellant again went back to the house.

● Ricky resumed drinking after pacifying appellant and Herminio. He then saw smoke
coming from the room of appellant and as he was about to enter the house, he met
appellant at the door. Appellant apparently tried to stab Ricky but was unsuccessful. 
Ricky witnessed appellant Felicidad and Alicia.

● Herminio also saw the smoke and peeped through the small window of the house; he
witnessed appellant burning some clothes and boxes in the sala. Herminio immediately
went inside the house to save his personal belongings. Upon emerging from the house,
Herminio saw his mother, Alicia, bloodied.
● Alicia testified that she was sitting a chair near the toilet when she saw smoke coming 
out of appellant’s room. Before she could react, appellant came charging at her and
stabbed her. She sustained wounds on her upper thigh, arms, below her breast and on
her ear. Alicia was still able to ask for help, and her daughter-in-law brought her to the
hospital.

● Eulogio heard a commotion while he was cooking in the second floor of the
house. When Eulogio went down, he already saw smoke coming from the room
of appellant. He then saw Felicidad near the comfort room located outside the house
and was bleeding from her mouth. As he was about to help Felicidad, he met appellant
who was then holding a knife. Eulogio immediately ran away.

● Upon seeing Herminio, appellant immediately attacked him with a knife. However,

Herminio and Ricky were able to pin appellant down. Before they could retaliate, the
barangay captain arrived at the scene. As a result, eight (8) houses were razed.

ISSUE

WoN accused is guilty of arson ( YES, simple arson)

RULINGS OF THE COURT AND DECISION

● Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of arson as charged and defined under
Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, extreme penalty of
death

● Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide as charged and he
is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS of Prision
correctional as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of Prision mayor as maximum.
02 People v Buebos GR No. 163938

DANTE BUEBOS and SARMELITO BUEBOS, Petitioners,

Vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

March 28, 2008

FACTS:

Around 3:00 o’clock in the morning, Adelina B. Borbe was in her house watching over
her sick child. She was lying down when she heard some noise around the house. She
got up and looked through the window and saw the four accused, Rolando Buela,
Sarmelito Buebos, Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. congregating in front of her
hut.

When she went out, she saw the roof of her nipa hut already on fire.

Olipiano was then drinking with Pepito Borbe to celebrate New Year’s Eve. Olipiano
immediately ran to the place and saw a number of people jumping over the fence. When
he focused his flashlight on them, he was able to identify Sarmelito Buebos, Dante
Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. He also saw Rolando Buela running away.

ISSUE:

The trial court erred in finding them guilty of the crime of arson; (2) that the trial court
erred in finding conspiracy; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to give weight and
credence to their defense of denial and alibi.

RULINGS OF THE COURT AND DECISION :

RTC found all of the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson the CA
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION the CA opined that the accused could only be
convicted of simple arson, and not for burning of an inhabited house the circumstantial
evidence extant in the records is sufficient to identify petitioners as the authors of the
burning of the hut of private complainant Adelina Borbe circumstances form an
unbroken chain of events leading to one fair conclusion – the culpability of petitioners
for the burning of the hut. The Court is convinced that the circumstances, taken
together, leave no doubt that petitioner perpetrated the arson.

The accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common design.
In such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused will
thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.

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.

The act committed by accused-appellant neither appears to be heinous nor represents

a greater degree of perversity and viciousness as distinguished from those acts
punishable under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code. No qualifying circumstance was
established to convert the offense to Destructive Arson.
03 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR DOLENDO

G.R. No. 223098, 03 June 2019

Lazaro-Javier, J.

FACTS:

In September 1996, Private Complainant Deolina Perocho and her children were eating
in their house when she heard Respondent Nestor Dolendo shouting, “Leonard, I am
already here!” She went out and saw the Respondent holding a gun. They all went
upstairs and called her, but due to their far distance from neighbors, no help came. She
then saw the Respondent gather dried coconut leave and set their porch on fire. She
and her children jumped from the rear window and hid in a grassy area. After a while,
they heard her six-year-old son crying. She then realized that she had totally forgotten
about him. By the time they came out from hiding, the house was completely burned,
and his son died. Private Complainant filed charges against the Respondent for arson
with homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

In its decision the RTC found the Respondent guilty of Arson with Homicide. However,
on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision of the RTC, finding the
Respondent guilty of Simple Arson.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA was correct in modifying the conviction of the Respondent from
Arson with Homicide to Simple Arson.

RULINGS OF THE COURT AND DECISION:

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that in cases where both the burning
and death occur, it is important to ascertain the main objective of the accused: 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 simple arson, and the resulting homicide is
absorbed; b) if the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building
or edifice, when first is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal, the crime
committed is murder only; lastly, c) 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 present case, it was clearly established that the death of the Private
Complainant’s son was by reason of or on the occasion of the arson. Hence, the same
is absorbed by the crime of simple arson.

CONCLUSION

Investigating arson is a very difficult task, because of a large numbers of cases

especially in the Philippines.

Therefore, To prove that the crime of arson has been committed, the cause of the fire
has to be determined. Arson is a unique crime in that evidence at the scene can be
destroyed; however, a systematic investigation may yield sufficient evidence to
determine the cause.

It is therefore important that every fire scene is treated as a potential arson crime until
proof of natural or accidental cause has been established.
RECOMMENDATIONS:

One of the best ways to prevent arson is making sure your property is secure, including
any derelict buildings.

 Keep entry points to buildings secure, including sheds or garages, perimeter

walls, fencing and gates
 Board up and secure unused or derelict buildings
 Prevent intruders and trespassing by making sure perimeters and buildings are
well maintained and any damage is repaired as soon as possible
 Consider installing security systems such as CCTV, alarms and security lighting
 Keep any flammable substances stored safely and securely, not left in the open
 Consider fitting a fire reduces everything.
REFERENCES

[G.R. No. 182460 : March 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.:

[Link]

G.R. No. 163938 March 28, 2008 DANTE BUEBOS and SARMELITO BUEBOS,
Petitioners, Vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. REYES, R.T., J.:

[Link]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR DOLENDO G.R. No. 223098, 03 June

2019 Lazaro-Javier, J.

[Link]