I. Overview

In Philippine criminal law, attempted arson is punished as an inchoate felony: the offender has begun the execution of arson by overt acts but does not complete the burning due to causes independent of the offender’s will.

The governing law is primarily the Revised Penal Code, as amended by special laws, particularly Presidential Decree No. 1613, which revised the law on arson. Arson is treated as a serious crime because it endangers not only property but also human life, public safety, and community security.

The penalty for attempted arson depends on the type of arson involved, because Philippine law grades penalties according to the penalty prescribed for the consummated felony and then reduces it by degrees for the attempted stage.

II. Legal Meaning of Attempted Felony

Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a felony is attempted when:

The offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts;
The offender does not perform all acts of execution that would produce the felony;
The non-performance of all acts is due to some cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance.

Applied to arson, attempted arson exists when the accused has already begun acts directly tending to burn property, but the burning is not completed because of outside intervention, accident, failure of means, or another cause independent of the accused’s will.

Example

A person pours gasoline on a house and lights a match intending to burn it, but neighbors immediately restrain him before the fire catches. That may constitute attempted arson, assuming the intent to burn is proven.

If the person voluntarily stops before doing an overt act directly connected to the burning, criminal liability for attempted arson may not arise, although another offense may be involved depending on the facts.

III. Arson Under Philippine Law

Arson is the malicious burning of property. The law does not require that the property be completely destroyed. What matters is the unlawful and intentional setting of fire to property covered by the law.

Philippine arson law recognizes different forms of arson, including:

Simple arson
Destructive arson
Other cases of arson under Presidential Decree No. 1613
Arson resulting in death
Arson as a means to commit another crime or conceal another crime

The penalty for attempted arson depends heavily on which of these classifications applies.

IV. Governing Laws

The principal laws are:

1. Revised Penal Code

The Revised Penal Code supplies the general rules on:

attempted, frustrated, and consummated felonies;
principals, accomplices, and accessories;
graduation of penalties;
mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances;
complex crimes;
prescription of crimes and penalties;
criminal and civil liability.

2. Presidential Decree No. 1613

Presidential Decree No. 1613 amended and consolidated the law on arson. It identifies different punishable acts of arson and prescribes penalties depending on the nature of the property burned and the circumstances of the burning.

3. Special Rules on Destructive Arson

Certain kinds of arson are treated as destructive arson, especially when the burning involves buildings, structures, facilities, or circumstances that create extraordinary danger to life, public safety, or national security.

V. Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson

A key issue in arson cases is whether the crime is attempted, frustrated, or consummated.

1. Attempted Arson

There is attempted arson when the accused begins the execution of arson by overt acts but does not perform all acts necessary to cause burning.

Typical indicators include:

preparing and applying combustible material;
attempting to ignite the material;
positioning fire-starting devices;
setting a fuse or match but the fire does not catch;
being prevented before ignition takes effect.

2. Frustrated Arson

Frustrated arson exists when the accused performs all acts of execution that would ordinarily produce arson, but the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the accused’s will.

However, in arson cases, the distinction between frustrated and consummated arson can be narrow. Once a part of the property is actually burned, courts may treat the arson as consummated even if the fire is quickly extinguished and the damage is minimal.

3. Consummated Arson

Arson is generally consummated once fire has actually burned any part of the property intended to be burned, even if the structure is not destroyed. Charring, scorching, or actual burning of a portion of the property may be sufficient, depending on the evidence.

Mere smoke, heating, or unsuccessful ignition may not be enough for consummation if no part of the property actually burns.

VI. Elements of Attempted Arson

The prosecution must generally establish:

Criminal intent to burn property;
A direct overt act toward burning the property;
Failure to complete the burning;
The failure was due to causes independent of the accused’s will.

A. Intent to Burn

Intent is essential. The prosecution must prove that the accused deliberately intended to set the property on fire.

Intent may be shown through:

possession or use of gasoline, kerosene, alcohol, lighter, matches, or other incendiary material;
threats to burn the property;
prior disputes with the owner or occupants;
conduct before, during, and after the incident;
eyewitness testimony;
CCTV footage;
forensic fire investigation;
confession or admission;
surrounding circumstances.

B. Overt Act

The act must be more than mere preparation. It must be a direct movement toward the commission of arson.

Mere preparation may include:

buying gasoline;
carrying matches;
planning to burn a house;
scouting the place;
making threats without execution.

Overt acts may include:

pouring gasoline on the target property;
lighting combustible material placed against the structure;
throwing a flaming object toward the building;
placing an ignited rag or paper near flammable portions of the property;
activating an incendiary device.

C. Failure Due to External Cause

The crime is attempted only if the accused failed to complete the arson because of a reason outside the accused’s own voluntary desistance.

Examples:

the accused was restrained;
rain extinguished the flame;
the match failed;
the device malfunctioned;
occupants discovered the act early;
firefighters intervened;
security guards stopped the accused.

If the accused freely and voluntarily abandoned the act before completion, there may be no attempted arson, although liability for another offense may still exist.

VII. Penalty Framework for Attempted Arson

The Revised Penal Code provides the general rule for attempted felonies:

The penalty for an attempted felony is generally two degrees lower than the penalty prescribed by law for the consummated felony.

Thus, to determine the penalty for attempted arson, one must first identify the penalty for the consummated form of the specific arson charged, then lower it by two degrees.

This is why there is no single universal penalty for “attempted arson.” The penalty depends on the arson category involved.

VIII. Penalty for Attempted Simple Arson

Under Presidential Decree No. 1613, certain forms of arson are punished by prision mayor.

If the consummated arson is punishable by prision mayor, then attempted arson is generally punished by a penalty two degrees lower.

The usual scale would be:

Consummated: prision mayor
Frustrated: prision correccional
Attempted: arresto mayor

Arresto Mayor

Arresto mayor ranges from:

1 month and 1 day to 6 months

Therefore, if the applicable consummated arson offense is punishable by prision mayor, attempted arson may be punishable by arresto mayor, subject to the rules on periods, modifying circumstances, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law where applicable.

IX. Penalty for Attempted Arson Punishable by Reclusion Temporal

Some forms of arson are punished by reclusion temporal.

If consummated arson is punishable by reclusion temporal, then attempted arson is generally two degrees lower.

The usual scale would be:

Consummated: reclusion temporal
Frustrated: prision mayor
Attempted: prision correccional

Prision Correccional

Prision correccional ranges from:

6 months and 1 day to 6 years

Thus, attempted arson of this type may be punishable by prision correccional, again subject to the proper period and other sentencing rules.

X. Penalty for Attempted Destructive Arson

Destructive arson is punished more severely because of the gravity of the property involved or the danger created.

Under the Revised Penal Code provisions on destructive arson, the penalty may be reclusion perpetua to death. Since the death penalty is not currently imposed in the Philippines, the operative maximum punishment is affected by laws prohibiting the imposition of death.

For attempted destructive arson, the penalty is generally two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated destructive arson.

Where the prescribed penalty for consummated destructive arson is reclusion perpetua to death, applying the penalty graduation rules can lead to complex results. The proper penalty should be determined using the Revised Penal Code rules on graduated scales and indivisible penalties.

In practical terms, attempted destructive arson remains a serious offense, and the resulting penalty may fall within the range of reclusion temporal or another penalty determined by statutory graduation, depending on the specific charge, applicable law, and judicial interpretation.

XI. Arson Resulting in Death

A very important distinction must be made between:

attempted arson where no death occurs;
consummated arson where death results;
attempted killing by means of fire;
murder or homicide committed by burning;
arson used to conceal another crime.

If death results from arson, the crime may be treated with much greater severity. Depending on the facts, the offense may be punished as arson with homicide, destructive arson with death, murder, or another serious felony.

But if the charge is strictly attempted arson, and no death or actual burning occurs, the penalty is based on attempted arson, not on homicide or murder.

XII. Attempted Arson Versus Attempted Murder by Fire

The facts may support either attempted arson or attempted murder, depending on the accused’s primary criminal intent.

Attempted Arson

The intent is primarily to burn property.

Example:

A person tries to burn a warehouse at night, believing it is empty.

Attempted Murder

The intent is primarily to kill a person by using fire.

Example:

A person pours gasoline on another person and tries to ignite it.

Possible Complex or Separate Crimes

If the accused intended both to burn property and kill occupants, the case may involve:

attempted murder;
attempted arson;
frustrated or consummated arson;
complex crime rules;
separate offenses, depending on the facts and prosecutorial theory.

Intent determines the proper charge.

XIII. Attempted Arson Versus Malicious Mischief

Not every fire-related act is arson.

If the evidence shows intent merely to damage property, but not to burn it, the offense may be malicious mischief or another property crime.

For arson, the fire itself must be the intended destructive means. The accused must intend to cause burning, not merely incidental heat, smoke, or minor damage.

XIV. Attempted Arson Versus Grave Threats

A threat to burn a house is not automatically attempted arson.

If a person merely says, “I will burn your house,” without beginning execution by overt acts, the offense may be grave threats, light threats, or another offense, depending on the circumstances.

Attempted arson requires an actual overt act directly connected to burning the property.

XV. Overt Acts Commonly Relevant in Attempted Arson Cases

The following acts may support attempted arson when combined with intent:

Pouring gasoline or kerosene on a building;
Lighting a match near flammable material attached to the structure;
Throwing a Molotov cocktail that fails to ignite;
Placing burning paper under a door but the flame is immediately extinguished;
Setting a fuse connected to combustible material but the fuse is cut;
Attempting to ignite curtains, wooden walls, or roofing materials;
Using an incendiary device that malfunctions;
Trying to burn a vehicle, house, public building, or commercial establishment but being stopped.

The facts must show that the act had already crossed the line from preparation to execution.

XVI. Preparatory Acts Are Not Enough

The following may be suspicious but are usually not enough by themselves:

buying gasoline;
carrying a lighter;
walking near a house with combustible material;
verbal threats;
drawing a plan;
sending angry messages;
being seen near the property before the fire attempt.

These may become relevant as circumstantial evidence, but attempted arson requires a direct overt act toward burning.

XVII. Voluntary Desistance

Voluntary desistance is a defense to attempted felony when the accused freely and spontaneously stops before the crime is completed.

For example, if the accused pours gasoline but, before lighting it, changes his mind and leaves voluntarily, attempted arson may not be established.

However, desistance must be truly voluntary. It is not voluntary if the accused stops because:

someone arrived;
police appeared;
the accused was afraid of being caught;
the fire-starting material failed;
the accused was physically prevented;
the intended victim resisted.

Also, voluntary desistance does not erase liability for other crimes already committed, such as trespass, threats, malicious mischief, illegal possession of explosives, or physical injuries.

XVIII. Evidentiary Issues

Attempted arson is often proven through circumstantial evidence because the act may happen quickly and secretly.

Important evidence may include:

Eyewitness testimony
CCTV footage
Fire investigator’s report
Burn patterns
Residue of accelerants
Gasoline containers or incendiary devices
Lighters, matches, rags, bottles, fuses
Prior threats
Motive
Flight or concealment
Admissions or confessions
Forensic chemistry results
Photos of the scene
Police blotter entries
Barangay reports

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

XIX. Role of Motive

Motive is not an element of arson, but it can strengthen the prosecution’s case, especially where identity or intent is disputed.

Common motives include:

revenge;
family dispute;
land conflict;
insurance fraud;
business rivalry;
labor dispute;
personal grudge;
concealment of another crime;
intimidation.

Lack of motive does not automatically acquit the accused if the acts and intent are proven. Conversely, motive alone is insufficient without proof of overt acts.

XX. Intent May Be Inferred From Circumstances

Direct proof of intent is rare. Courts may infer intent from conduct.

Intent to commit arson may be inferred when a person:

brings flammable substances to the property;
applies them to combustible areas;
ignites or attempts to ignite them;
acts secretly or at night;
flees when discovered;
previously threatened to burn the property;
uses a device designed to start a fire.

However, the inference must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence.

XXI. Arson of One’s Own Property

A person may be criminally liable for arson even if the property burned or attempted to be burned belongs to him or her, if the act endangers others or falls within the statute.

Examples:

burning one’s own house in a crowded neighborhood;
attempting to burn insured property for fraudulent purposes;
setting fire to property that may spread to neighboring structures;
burning property with occupants inside;
burning a leased property or co-owned property.

Ownership does not automatically exempt a person from arson liability.

XXII. Attempted Arson of a Dwelling

Attempted burning of a dwelling is treated seriously because of the danger to occupants and neighboring structures.

A dwelling may be involved even if:

the occupants are asleep;
the owner is away;
only part of the structure is targeted;
the fire does not spread;
the fire fails to ignite.

If the overt act is directed toward burning a house or residence, the penalty depends on the applicable arson provision and circumstances.

XXIII. Attempted Arson of Public Buildings and Facilities

Attempted burning of public buildings, government facilities, transportation systems, power installations, communication facilities, or public infrastructure may fall under more serious arson provisions.

The classification may be aggravated where the act threatens:

public safety;
government operations;
public utilities;
national security;
mass casualties;
economic disruption.

Depending on the property and circumstances, the offense may be charged as attempted destructive arson or another special offense.

XXIV. Attempted Arson of Vehicles

Attempted burning of a motor vehicle can constitute attempted arson if the intent is to burn the vehicle.

Examples:

pouring gasoline on a parked car and trying to ignite it;
placing a burning rag in a fuel opening;
throwing an incendiary bottle at a vehicle;
attempting to set fire to a public utility vehicle.

If people are inside the vehicle, the facts may also support attempted murder, frustrated murder, or another offense.

XXV. Attempted Arson and Insurance Fraud

Arson committed or attempted to defraud an insurer is treated seriously.

If a person attempts to burn insured property to collect insurance proceeds, the case may involve:

attempted arson;
insurance fraud;
estafa or attempted estafa, depending on the acts;
falsification, if false claims or documents are submitted;
conspiracy, if others participate.

The arson offense does not disappear merely because the motive is financial.

XXVI. Conspiracy in Attempted Arson

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit arson and decide to commit it.

In conspiracy, the act of one may be the act of all, provided the conspiracy and participation are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Examples of conspiratorial acts:

one person buys gasoline;
another drives the group to the property;
another acts as lookout;
another lights the combustible material.

Mere presence at the scene is not enough. There must be proof of intentional participation or common criminal design.

XXVII. Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories

Principals

A person may be liable as principal by:

Direct participation;
Inducement;
Indispensable cooperation.

Accomplices

An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense through previous or simultaneous acts but is not a principal.

Accessories

Accessories participate after the commission of the crime, such as by concealing evidence or assisting the offender to escape, subject to the limitations under the Revised Penal Code.

The penalty differs depending on the degree of participation.

XXVIII. Aggravating Circumstances

Aggravating circumstances may increase the penalty within the proper range.

Possible aggravating circumstances in attempted arson cases include:

nighttime;
treachery, if persons were targeted;
evident premeditation;
dwelling;
abuse of superior strength;
use of motor vehicle;
recidivism;
disguise;
contempt of public authority;
ignominy;
calamity or public disorder;
use of fire to facilitate another crime.

The applicability depends on the facts and the offense charged.

XXIX. Mitigating Circumstances

Mitigating circumstances may reduce the penalty within the statutory framework.

Possible mitigating circumstances include:

voluntary surrender;
plea of guilty before presentation of evidence;
lack of intent to cause so grave a wrong;
sufficient provocation;
passion or obfuscation;
minority;
incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance;
physical defect;
illness diminishing willpower, where legally recognized.

Mitigating circumstances do not erase criminal liability but may affect the penalty.

XXX. Alternative Circumstances

Relationship, intoxication, and degree of education may be considered aggravating or mitigating depending on the facts.

In arson, relationship may matter if the property belongs to a relative or if the act is committed in a family dwelling, but its effect depends on the precise circumstances.

XXXI. The Indeterminate Sentence Law

Where applicable, the court imposes an indeterminate sentence consisting of:

a minimum term, taken from the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law; and
a maximum term, taken from the proper imposable penalty after considering circumstances.

For attempted arson punishable by divisible penalties such as arresto mayor or prision correccional, the Indeterminate Sentence Law may affect the final sentence.

However, the law has exceptions, including certain short sentences and specific categories of offenders or offenses.

XXXII. Probation

Whether a person convicted of attempted arson may apply for probation depends on the penalty actually imposed and the requirements of the Probation Law.

Generally, probation may be available if the sentence does not exceed the statutory threshold and the offender is not disqualified.

However, probation is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the court under proper circumstances.

XXXIII. Bail

Attempted arson may be bailable depending on the offense charged and the imposable penalty.

If the charge is attempted simple arson with a relatively lower imposable penalty, bail is generally a matter of right before conviction.

If the charge involves attempted destructive arson or a penalty approaching reclusion perpetua, bail issues may become more serious. For offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, bail is not a matter of right when evidence of guilt is strong.

The precise bail situation depends on the information filed, penalty imposable, and stage of proceedings.

XXXIV. Prescription of the Crime

The prescriptive period depends on the penalty prescribed for the offense. Since attempted arson penalties vary, prescription also varies.

Generally:

crimes punishable by afflictive penalties prescribe in longer periods;
crimes punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in shorter periods;
light offenses prescribe more quickly.

The exact period must be determined by identifying the imposable penalty for the specific attempted arson charged.

XXXV. Civil Liability

A person convicted of attempted arson may be ordered to pay civil liability, including:

actual damages;
repair costs;
value of damaged property;
moral damages, if legally justified;
exemplary damages, if warranted;
attorney’s fees, where allowed;
costs of suit.

Even if the arson is only attempted, civil liability may arise if property damage, injury, fear, displacement, or other compensable harm occurred.

XXXVI. Corporate or Business Context

Attempted arson may arise in business disputes, labor conflicts, landlord-tenant conflicts, insurance claims, or demolition controversies.

Where a business entity is involved, the individuals who performed, ordered, induced, or cooperated in the criminal act may be prosecuted.

Corporations themselves may face separate regulatory, civil, or administrative consequences, but criminal liability generally attaches to responsible natural persons unless a special law provides otherwise.

XXXVII. Barangay Proceedings

Attempted arson is not the type of dispute that should be treated as a mere barangay conciliation matter when it constitutes a serious public offense.

Barangay blotters, mediation attempts, or settlement talks do not prevent the State from prosecuting a criminal offense. Criminal liability is not extinguished by private settlement, although settlement may affect civil liability or be considered in some contexts.

XXXVIII. Defenses in Attempted Arson Cases

Common defenses include:

1. Denial

The accused denies committing the act. Denial is weak if unsupported and contradicted by positive identification.

2. Alibi

The accused claims to have been elsewhere. Alibi must show physical impossibility of presence at the scene.

3. No Intent to Burn

The accused may argue that there was no intent to commit arson, and that the act was accidental, misinterpreted, or unrelated to burning.

4. Mere Preparation

The defense may argue that the acts did not yet amount to direct overt acts.

5. Voluntary Desistance

The accused may claim to have freely abandoned the act before the felony was completed.

6. Accident

The fire-related incident may have been accidental, with no criminal intent.

7. Mistaken Identity

The accused may challenge eyewitness identification, CCTV clarity, or forensic linkage.

8. Improper Forensic Conclusion

The defense may dispute accelerant testing, burn pattern interpretation, chain of custody, or fire investigator conclusions.

9. Frame-Up or Fabrication

This may be raised in cases involving personal disputes, property conflicts, or political rivalry, but it requires credible support.

XXXIX. Prosecution Strategy

To prove attempted arson, the prosecution usually focuses on:

the accused’s identity;
intent to burn;
overt acts directly tending toward burning;
failure of consummation due to outside causes;
nature of the property targeted;
applicable arson classification;
physical and testimonial evidence.

A strong prosecution case connects motive, preparation, overt act, and external interruption into a coherent chain.

XL. Defense Strategy

A defense usually attacks one or more of the following:

absence of intent;
absence of overt act;
voluntary desistance;
unreliable witnesses;
lack of forensic support;
alternative explanation;
improper classification of arson;
excessive penalty charged;
defects in the information;
reasonable doubt.

The classification of the offense is especially important because it determines the penalty.

XLI. Importance of the Information or Charge Sheet

The criminal information must allege the essential facts constituting attempted arson.

It should generally state:

the identity of the accused;
the property intended to be burned;
the acts performed;
the intent to burn;
the reason the arson was not completed;
qualifying or aggravating circumstances, if any.

Qualifying circumstances must be alleged. If not alleged, they generally cannot be used to increase the nature of the offense, although they may sometimes be considered as generic aggravating circumstances if properly pleaded and proven.

XLII. Attempted Arson and Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining may be possible depending on:

the charge;
the evidence;
the prosecutor’s consent;
the offended party’s position;
the court’s approval;
applicable rules and policies.

A plea to a lesser offense may be considered where evidence of intent or overt act is weak, but serious arson charges are often treated cautiously because of public safety implications.

XLIII. Juvenile Offenders

If the accused is a minor, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act applies.

Important rules include:

children below the age of criminal responsibility are exempt from criminal liability but subject to intervention;
children above the threshold but below eighteen may be subject to diversion or intervention depending on age, discernment, and offense;
discernment must be established where required;
detention of minors is subject to special rules;
rehabilitation is emphasized.

Attempted arson by a minor is still serious, but the legal consequences differ from adult prosecution.

XLIV. Mental Incapacity and Exempting Circumstances

The accused may be exempt from criminal liability if an exempting circumstance applies, such as insanity, imbecility, or accident without fault or intent.

Insanity is difficult to prove. It must generally relate to the time of commission and show complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of action.

Mental illness alone does not automatically exempt the accused.

XLV. Fire Investigation Issues

Fire investigation is important even in attempted cases.

Investigators may examine:

point of origin;
attempted ignition source;
accelerant residue;
burn marks;
failed ignition devices;
container placement;
matchsticks, lighters, rags, bottles;
witness accounts;
CCTV footage;
weather conditions;
electrical sources;
accidental causes.

In attempted arson, the absence of a completed fire makes physical evidence even more important.

XLVI. Chain of Custody

If the prosecution relies on physical evidence, it must establish proper handling.

Examples:

gasoline container;
lighter;
burnt cloth;
Molotov bottle;
chemical residue;
matchsticks;
surveillance files.

Weak chain of custody may reduce evidentiary value, although chain-of-custody rules in arson are not identical to drug cases.

XLVII. Arson and Terrorism-Related Context

If an attempted burning is intended to sow terror, intimidate the public, attack critical infrastructure, or coerce the government, other special laws may be implicated.

The charge may extend beyond attempted arson depending on the facts, intent, target, and statutory elements.

XLVIII. Arson During Public Disorder or Calamity

Attempted arson during riots, public disorder, calamities, emergencies, or disasters may attract aggravating circumstances or additional charges.

Burning or attempting to burn property during such times is treated seriously because public safety systems may already be strained.

XLIX. Firearms, Explosives, and Incendiary Devices

If the attempted arson involves explosives, incendiary devices, or illegal materials, the accused may face separate charges under special laws.

Examples include:

illegal possession of explosives;
unlawful manufacture of incendiary devices;
illegal possession of firearms, if firearms are involved;
damage to public infrastructure;
terrorism-related offenses, where applicable.

These charges may be prosecuted separately if their elements are distinct.

L. Attempted Arson in Domestic or Family Disputes

Attempted arson sometimes occurs in domestic conflicts, such as threats to burn a family home.

Possible overlapping issues include:

violence against women and children;
grave threats;
coercion;
malicious mischief;
attempted homicide or murder;
protection orders;
child endangerment.

The relationship between the parties does not make the offense private or non-criminal.

LI. Attempted Arson and Landlord-Tenant Disputes

In lease disputes, attempted burning of leased premises may result in criminal liability regardless of ownership.

The offender may be:

landlord;
tenant;
caretaker;
security personnel;
hired person;
third party.

Civil disputes over possession or rent do not justify burning or attempting to burn property.

LII. Attempted Arson and Labor Disputes

During labor disputes, fire-related acts may be charged as attempted arson if directed toward burning company property, vehicles, offices, factories, warehouses, or equipment.

The existence of a labor dispute does not excuse criminal conduct.

However, prosecutors must still prove individual criminal acts and intent. Membership in a union, presence at a picket, or participation in protest does not automatically establish liability.

LIII. Attempted Arson and Political Violence

Attempted burning of campaign offices, government buildings, vehicles, ballot materials, or public facilities may involve attempted arson and possibly election offenses, public disorder offenses, terrorism-related laws, or offenses against public authority.

The classification depends on timing, motive, target, and statutory elements.

LIV. Penalty Computation: General Method

To compute the penalty for attempted arson:

Identify the exact arson offense charged.
Determine the penalty for the consummated offense.
Lower the penalty by two degrees for attempted felony.
Determine the proper period based on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if applicable.
Consider privileged mitigating circumstances, if any.
Consider whether the accused is a minor.
Determine accessory penalties and civil liability.

LV. Illustrative Penalty Scenarios

Scenario 1: Attempted Arson Where Consummated Offense Is Punishable by Prision Mayor

If the consummated arson would be punished by prision mayor, attempted arson is generally two degrees lower, resulting in arresto mayor.

Possible imprisonment range:

1 month and 1 day to 6 months

Scenario 2: Attempted Arson Where Consummated Offense Is Punishable by Reclusion Temporal

If the consummated arson would be punished by reclusion temporal, attempted arson is generally two degrees lower, resulting in prision correccional.

Possible imprisonment range:

6 months and 1 day to 6 years

Scenario 3: Attempted Destructive Arson

If the consummated offense is destructive arson punishable by a severe indivisible penalty, attempted liability must be computed using the rules on graduated penalties. The resulting penalty is substantially heavier than attempted simple arson and requires careful legal computation.

LVI. Accessory Penalties

Depending on the principal penalty imposed, accessory penalties may include:

suspension from public office;
suspension of civil rights;
disqualification;
civil interdiction;
other consequences attached by law to the penalty.

The accessory penalties depend on the principal penalty ultimately imposed.

LVII. Criminal Record Consequences

A conviction for attempted arson may have serious collateral consequences, including:

criminal record;
employment consequences;
licensing issues;
immigration consequences;
disqualification from certain public benefits or positions;
reputational harm;
civil liability.

Even where the penalty is lower because the crime was attempted, the nature of the offense remains serious.

LVIII. Practical Importance of Proper Classification

The difference between attempted simple arson and attempted destructive arson can be dramatic.

Classification affects:

imposable penalty;
bail;
plea bargaining;
probation;
prescription;
trial strategy;
settlement posture;
civil liability exposure;
public prosecutor handling.

The factual allegations in the information are therefore critical.

LIX. Common Misconceptions

1. “No fire, no crime.”

Wrong. If the accused already began execution by overt acts, attempted arson may exist even if no fire actually burned the property.

2. “Small damage means no arson.”

Wrong. Arson may be consummated even if only a small part is burned.

3. “It was my property, so I can burn it.”

Wrong. Burning or attempting to burn one’s own property may still be criminal if the law is violated or others are endangered.

4. “A threat to burn is already attempted arson.”

Not necessarily. A threat alone may be a different crime. Attempted arson requires overt acts.

5. “Stopping means no liability.”

Only voluntary and spontaneous desistance may prevent attempted liability. Being stopped by others or by external circumstances does not.

LX. Key Takeaways

Attempted arson in the Philippines is punished under the Revised Penal Code framework for attempted felonies, in relation to the applicable arson law, especially Presidential Decree No. 1613.

The penalty is not fixed in one universal number. It depends on the penalty for the consummated arson offense and is generally two degrees lower.

In many cases:

attempted arson based on a consummated offense punishable by prision mayor may result in arresto mayor;
attempted arson based on a consummated offense punishable by reclusion temporal may result in prision correccional;
attempted destructive arson may carry much heavier consequences.

The central questions are:

What property was targeted?
What exact arson provision applies?
Did the accused intend to burn it?
Were there direct overt acts?
Why was the burning not completed?
Were there aggravating, qualifying, or mitigating circumstances?
Was the act merely preparatory, attempted, frustrated, or consummated?

Attempted arson is therefore a fact-sensitive and penalty-sensitive offense. Correct legal analysis requires identifying both the stage of execution and the precise statutory classification of the arson involved.