Legal Status of Frustrated Arson under Philippine Criminal Law
(Note: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional legal advice.)

I. Introduction

Arson, under Philippine law, refers to the malicious act of setting fire to property. The offense is primarily governed by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1613, known as the “Amending the Law on Arson,” and supplemented by relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Like other felonies, arson can be committed in its attempted, frustrated, or consummated stages, depending on how far the offender has progressed in carrying out the criminal act.

Among these stages, frustrated arson can be a particularly nuanced legal concept. This article aims to clarify the nature, elements, and penalties of frustrated arson under Philippine criminal law, along with relevant considerations and jurisprudential insights.

II. Overview of Arson under Philippine Law

Legal Basis
- Presidential Decree No. 1613 (Anti-Arson Law) lays down the specific penalties and definitions governing arson.
- Revised Penal Code (RPC) provisions on stages of execution (Articles 6 and 7) continue to apply to arson, clarifying the concepts of attempted, frustrated, and consummated felonies.
General Definition of Arson
Arson involves the willful and malicious setting fire to or burning of property, whether the property belongs to the offender or another person, under circumstances that endanger public safety or cause damage to others.
Destructive Arson vs. Simple Arson
- Destructive Arson: Involves burning property such as inhabited houses, public buildings, or buildings where people are present. Heavier penalties typically attach to destructive arson.
- Simple Arson: Involves burning of other types of property not classified under destructive arson (e.g., uninhabited structures, personal property, etc.), though still punishable under P.D. 1613.

III. Stages of Criminal Execution Under the Revised Penal Code

To better understand frustrated arson, it is crucial to review the standard stages of crime under the Revised Penal Code:

Attempted Stage (Article 6, RPC)
A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of the crime by direct overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution. The offender’s external acts clearly indicate an intention to commit the crime, yet the felony is not carried out because of some cause or accident other than the offender’s voluntary desistance.
Frustrated Stage (Article 6, RPC)
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution necessary to produce the felony, but for reasons independent of the offender’s will, the felony is not consummated. The key here is that the offender’s actions would normally result in the commission of the offense, yet a fortuitous or external factor prevents its completion.
Consummated Stage (Article 6, RPC)
A felony is consummated when all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present, thereby producing the intended criminal result.

IV. Frustrated Arson: Concept and Elements

Frustrated arson occurs when the offender has already set fire (or performed all acts that would logically result in fire spreading to cause destruction of property), but the harmful result—destruction of or damage to the property—does not occur because of a cause or causes independent of the perpetrator’s will.

Elements of Frustrated Arson
Based on the general doctrine under the RPC (and applied to arson via P.D. 1613), the following elements must be proven:
1. Offender intended to commit arson. There should be clear evidence of the intent to burn property maliciously.
2. Offender performed all acts of execution. This means the accused took sufficient steps that would ordinarily result in the property’s destruction by fire (e.g., dousing an area with flammable material and igniting it).
3. Property did not burn or did not suffer the intended damage. Despite the offender’s complete actions to set the property ablaze, the property was not actually destroyed or significantly burned. This failure to consummate the arson must be due to causes beyond the perpetrator’s control (for instance, a timely intervention by neighbors or firefighters, or the quick extinguishing of flames before real damage could ensue).
Illustrative Situations
- If an individual pours gasoline on the premises, ignites it, and flames erupt, but the fire is put out almost immediately by neighbors before any substantial portion of the structure is burned, frustrated arson could be charged.
- If the offender places combustible materials and lights them, but the materials fail to ignite adequately or are extinguished promptly by rain or some accident, preventing actual damage, the crime may be in the frustrated stage (provided the acts done would normally have resulted in the burning of the property).

V. Distinguishing Frustrated Arson from Attempted and Consummated Arson

Frustrated vs. Attempted Arson
- In attempted arson, the offender’s acts do not fully set the fire or effect the immediate danger. For instance, preparing and positioning flammable materials without actually lighting them might amount to attempted arson—because the act of starting the fire itself was not completed.
- In frustrated arson, by contrast, the offender has gone beyond mere preparation and has effectively ignited the premises (or done everything necessary to burn the property). However, the property does not actually sustain substantial damage, typically due to timely intervention or other external factors.
Frustrated vs. Consummated Arson
- Consummated arson arises once the property has been partially or substantially damaged by fire. Under P.D. 1613, even partial damage to the structure—depending on the kind of property involved—can be enough to consider the act consummated.
- Frustrated arson stops just short of actual burning or destruction. The key distinction is that although the criminal act has been carried out in its entirety from the offender’s perspective, the result (damage to or destruction of property) does not occur.

VI. Penalty Provisions

General Penalty Scheme
Under P.D. 1613, the penalties for arson (whether destructive or simple) vary depending on the nature of the property involved and the extent of the damage caused.
- Typically, destructive arson attracts higher penalties (reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, depending on aggravating circumstances).
- Simple arson carries lighter but still significant penalties.
Penalty for Frustrated Arson
The Revised Penal Code (Article 50, in conjunction with Articles 6–10) provides that a frustrated felony is subject to a penalty one degree lower than that of the consummated felony. Thus, when one is charged with frustrated arson, the imposable penalty is one degree lower than if the offense had been consummated.
Modifying Circumstances
The same modifying circumstances under the RPC (aggravating, mitigating, or alternative) can affect penalties for frustrated arson. For instance:
- Aggravating factors: Nighttime, use of explosives, recidivism, or the act being committed in a highly flammable location.
- Mitigating factors: Voluntary surrender, minor participation, or incomplete self-defense (though self-defense rarely arises in the context of arson, it is theoretically possible in extremely unusual circumstances).

VII. Evidentiary Considerations

Proof of Intent to Burn
Prosecutors must establish the intentional and malicious burning. Evidence such as prior threats, procurement of accelerants, or incriminatory statements can be crucial to prove criminal intent.
Proof of Execution of Acts Leading to Fire
Physical evidence (e.g., burn marks, partially lit materials), witness testimony attesting to the attempt to ignite, and forensic assessments from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) may be presented to show that the accused performed all acts necessary to carry out the burning.
Proof of Non-Completion Due to External Causes
For frustrated arson, it must be demonstrated that although the defendant completed all acts to start the fire, some outside intervention or unforeseeable event prevented its consummation. Quick response by firefighters, neighbors, or other fortuitous circumstances are common examples.

VIII. Jurisprudential Insights

Philippine jurisprudence on frustrated arson highlights the importance of the timing and effectiveness of the act of burning:

Role of Immediate Intervention: The Supreme Court has underscored that frustrated arson hinges on the intervention of factors beyond the control of the offender. If the flames are extinguished by bystanders or firefighters before any tangible damage occurs, the court may uphold a charge of frustrated arson rather than attempted or consummated arson.
Amount of Damage or Charring: Even slight charring or scorching of a portion of the property may suffice to consider the arson consummated, depending on the specific property involved. If the structure or a material part thereof has actually started to burn, the offense might move from frustrated to consummated.
Burden of Proof: As in all criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden to prove each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, including that the accused performed all necessary acts and that the failure to destroy the property was due to external causes.

IX. Practical Implications

Charge Considerations
Prosecutors will file a charge for frustrated arson if they have sufficient evidence that the accused completed the acts necessary to burn a structure but did not succeed in destroying it. Defense counsel may challenge the prosecution’s evidence of the extent of damage or the sufficiency of the acts of execution to argue that the crime is only attempted arson.
Defenses
- Absence of Malice or Intent: Demonstrating that the incident was an accident or not caused deliberately.
- Failure to Prove Complete Acts of Execution: Arguing that the accused did not actually set the fire or that any actions taken fell short of producing a flame.
- Independent Cause: If the property was never in danger because the accelerant used was defective or the ignition attempt was insufficient to create a fire, the defense might contend that it was only attempted arson.
Sentencing and Plea Bargaining
Given that frustrated felonies are penalized by a degree lower than their consummated counterparts, defendants may sometimes opt to plead guilty to frustrated arson if the prosecution’s evidence for consummated arson is borderline, mitigating potential sentencing outcomes.

X. Conclusion

Frustrated arson in the Philippines is a distinct stage of the crime of arson in which the offender has performed all acts necessary to set a property ablaze, yet external factors prevent actual or sufficient destruction of the property. Guided primarily by P.D. No. 1613 and the Revised Penal Code provisions on the stages of execution, frustrated arson carries penalties one degree lower than its consummated form.

However, determining which stage of arson applies will always hinge on the specific facts and the evidence presented. Critical factors include whether the property sustained any actual burning or damage, how far the offender progressed in setting the fire, and whether external forces prevented further damage. Given the significant penalties involved—even at the frustrated stage—both prosecutors and defense counsel must carefully evaluate the factual circumstances, the forensic evidence, and the applicable legal provisions to properly determine and litigate the correct classification of the offense.

Disclaimer: This article provides a broad overview of frustrated arson under Philippine criminal law and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals dealing with specific cases or facing arson charges should consult a qualified attorney for guidance tailored to their particular situation.