Attempted and Frustrated Arson under Philippine Law
(Everything practitioners, students, and investigators need to know)
1. Statutory Framework
| Source | What it Covers | Current Status |
|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) | • Art. 6 – stages of execution (attempted, frustrated, consummated) • Art. 59 – penalties one or two degrees lower for attempts/frustrations when the special law is silent |
Still governs stages and graduation of penalties |
| Art. 320 RPC (Destructive Arson) | Originally defined “destructive arson” | Expressly repealed by P.D. 1613 |
| Presidential Decree 1613 (1979) | Comprehensive special law on arson; classifies destructive, other cases, attempted/frustrated arson | Primary substantive law today |
| P.D. 1744 (1980) | Elevates arson with death to murder; increases penalties for arson of public transport, hotels, hospitals, etc. | Supplementary; not repealed |
| R.A. 9516 (2008) | Unifies laws on explosives; relevant where incendiary bombs/explosives are used | May qualify arson as terrorism or destructive arson with heavier penalties |
2. “Attempted” and “Frustrated” under Article 6, RPC
| Stage | Legal Test (Art. 6) | In Arson Context (Key Supreme Court rulings) |
|---|---|---|
| Attempted | “Commenced directly by overt acts, but did not perform all acts of execution.” | • Pouring gasoline and striking a match, fire fails to ignite – People v. Canja, G.R. L‑48640, 14 Aug 1980 • Cutting electric wires to cause short‑circuit but fuse blows – People v. Garcia, G.R. 190030, 03 Feb 2016 |
| Frustrated | “All acts of execution performed which would produce the felony as a consequence, but its consummation is prevented by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.” | • Flames actually ignite wood or parts of the structure but are extinguished before any part is charred or consumed – People v. Lizada, L‑31889, 30 Apr 1974 • Roof already burning; firemen promptly put it out – People v. Ramos, G.R. 153833, 20 Apr 2001 |
Rule of thumb:
• No ignition = Attempted.
• Ignition but no charring or no independent combustion = Frustrated.
• Any part charred or consumed, no matter how small = Consummated. – People v. Hernandez, L‑15036, 31 Jan 1961
3. Elements of Attempted/Frustrated Arson (applied to any variant under P.D. 1613)
- Offender’s intent to burn (malice, not accident).
- Property is susceptible of being burned (building, vehicle, agricultural product, etc.).
- Stage of execution:
Attempted – offender begins the fire‑setting process but no flame results.
Frustrated – flame or heat results but no actual injury to property because of external causes (rain, intervention, etc.). - Causal connection between the acts and the expected burning.
- No valid justification or exempting circumstance (e.g., lawful demolition, self‑defense).
4. How P.D. 1613 Treats Attempts and Frustrations
| Section | Variant | Consummated Penalty | Attempted / Frustrated Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sec. 2 | Destructive arson (public/inhabited structures, trains, vessels, storage of inflammables, etc.) | Reclusion temporal – Reclusion perpetua | Reclusion temporal (min.) – Reclusion temporal (max.) (One degree lower, pursuant to Sec. 7 & Art. 59 RPC) |
| Sec. 3–4 | Other cases of arson (private houses, plantations, forests, archives) | Prisión mayor – Reclusion temporal | Prisión correccional – Prisión mayor |
| Sec. 7 | Attempted/Frustrated destructive arson when explosives are used or when intended to destroy an entire community | Reclusion temporal – Reclusion perpetua (already lowered by the decree itself; Art. 59 no longer applies) |
When P.D. 1613 itself fixes the lower range (e.g., Sec. 7), follow the decree. Otherwise, apply Article 59 to drop the penalty one degree.
5. Doctrinal Case Summaries
| Case | G.R. / Date | Facts | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Lizada | L‑31889, 30 Apr 1974 | Gasoline poured, match lit; blaze died instantly when rain poured | Frustrated arson (ignition occurred). |
| People v. Canja | L‑48640, 14 Aug 1980 | Accused set fire to rags but guard stopped her before lighting house | Attempted arson (no flame on structure). |
| People v. Ramos | 153833, 20 Apr 2001 | Burning roof put out in minutes, no damage | Frustrated arson. |
| People v. Garcia | 190030, 03 Feb 2016 | Attempted short‑circuit; fuse cut power | Attempted arson; no ignition. |
| People v. Hernandez | L‑15036, 31 Jan 1961 | A single beam charred | Consummated arson; slightest charring suffices. |
6. Important Distinctions & Practical Tests
| Question | Attempted | Frustrated | Consummated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a flame on the target property? | ✘ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Was any part of the property charred/consumed? | ✘ | ✘ | ✔ |
| Did external causes alone prevent damage? | ✘ (offender himself failed) | ✔ | — |
| Penalty base | –2 degrees (Art. 61 or Sec. 7 PD 1613) | –1 degree (Art. 61 or Sec. 7) | Full penalty in PD 1613 |
7. Special Issues & Nuances
- Complex Crimes – If death results, apply P.D. 1744: arson with homicide is treated as murder (reclusion perpetua–death, now reclusion perpetua after R.A. 9346).
- Means Employed – Use of incendiary bombs may invoke R.A. 9516 or even the Anti‑Terrorism Act (R.A. 11479) if intended to sow widespread fear.
- Multiplicity of Victims/Structures – Each building burned is a separate count; but burning several rooms of one building = one offense (People v. Soriano, 208 Phil 256).
- Insurance Fraud – Motive aggravates but does not change the classification; may add estafa or economic sabotage.
- Cyclic Plantation Burning – Intent is key. Swidden (“kaingin”) absent malice is punished under environmental laws, not arson.
- Qualified Circumstances – Nighttime, use of flammable substances, dwelling, calamity scene may supply generic aggravating factors (Art. 14 RPC).
8. Evidentiary & Procedural Pointers
| Point | Best Practice |
|---|---|
| Proof of Ignition | Fire investigator’s photos, chemical analysis of soot, testimony of first responder. |
| Establish Malice | Prior threats, purchase of accelerant, insurance policy evidence. |
| Defense Theories | Accident (spontaneous combustion), alibi, identity. |
| Venue | Where the burning occurred; if fire crosses cities, where ignition happened. |
| Civil Liability | Restitution of property, moral/exemplary damages (Art. 100 RPC; Art. 2199 et seq. Civil Code). |
9. Penalty Graduation Examples
- Consummated destructive arson (public school): Reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua (Sec. 2).
- Frustrated destructive arson (same case): One degree lower → Reclusion temporal minimum to medium.
- Attempted ordinary arson (burning a private warehouse): Consummated = Prisión mayor (Sec. 3) → two degrees lower = Arresto mayor (Art. 61 & 71).
10. Checklist for Charging or Defending an Arson Case
- Identify the exact variant under P.D. 1613 (public vs private, destructive vs other cases).
- Pin down the stage of execution using ignition & damage tests.
- Cite the correct penalty range (be wary of Sec. 7 vs Art. 59).
- Secure expert testimony on origin and cause.
- Gather evidence of intent (accelerants, threats, insurance).
- Consider overlapping laws (P.D. 1744, R.A. 9516, Anti‑Terrorism Act).
- Compute civil damages early; courts award upon conviction.
11. Conclusion
Attempted and frustrated arson hinge on ignition and damage, interpreted through Article 6 of the RPC and refined by decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence. P.D. 1613 supplants Article 320 and supplies modern penalty ranges, while Article 59 governs graduation where the decree is silent. Prosecutors must allege the proper stage; defense counsel should scrutinize whether flame or charring truly occurred. Investigators, meanwhile, must meticulously document ignition to support or negate a frustrated‑arson theory. Mastery of these nuances ensures correct charging, fair penalties, and effective protection of life and property against the scourge of malicious fire‑setting.
This article provides general legal information only and is not a substitute for individualized advice. For actual cases, consult qualified Philippine counsel.