In Philippine criminal law, arson is the malicious destruction of property by fire. While most legal discussions focus on the consummated act, the stage of execution—specifically the Frustrated Stage—presents a nuanced area of jurisprudence. Understanding frustrated arson requires a deep dive into the Revised Penal Code (RPC), specifically Article 6 in relation to the special laws that now govern arson (PD 1613).

The Stages of Execution

To identify frustrated arson, one must distinguish it from the attempted and consummated stages as defined under Article 6 of the RPC:

Attempted: The offender begins the execution of the crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance. (Example: Setting a rag on fire near a wall, but the fire is put out before it touches the structure).
Frustrated: The offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Consummated: All elements of the execution and the accomplishment of the felony are present.

The Essential Elements of Frustrated Arson

For a charge of frustrated arson to hold, the following specific elements must be established by the prosecution:

Intent: The perpetrator must have the specific intent to burn a building or property.
Performance of All Acts: The perpetrator has performed every physical act necessary to burn the structure. This usually involves actually setting a portion of the property on fire.
The "Burn" Requirement: The hallmark of frustrated arson is that while fire was applied to the object and a part of the object began to burn, the fire was extinguished before any part of the structure was actually consumed or destroyed.
Independent Cause: The failure of the building to burn down or be significantly damaged must be due to an external factor (e.g., rapid response by firefighters or a sudden downpour) and not because the perpetrator changed their mind.

The "Slight Singeing" Rule: Consummated vs. Frustrated

The distinction between frustrated and consummated arson is notoriously thin. Under Philippine jurisprudence (notably the landmark rulings citing Spanish legal origins), arson is considered consummated the moment even a small portion of the building or the wood of the structure is "charred" or "consumed" by fire.

Consummated: If a wall is slightly charred or a floorboard is partially eaten by flame, the crime is consummated. It does not matter if the fire was put out seconds later.
Frustrated: If the fire was set, and the heat was sufficient to scorch or smoke the wall, but no part of the physical structure was actually consumed or turned to charcoal, the crime remains in the frustrated stage.

Legal Note: Because the threshold for "consumption" is so low, most arson cases in the Philippines are filed as either Attempted (if the fire didn't catch the building) or Consummated (if it did). The "Frustrated" stage exists in a narrow window where the flame was applied and all acts were done, yet the material of the building itself resisted combustion.

Applicable Laws and Penalties

While the RPC originally contained several articles on arson (Arts. 320-326), most were superseded by Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Amending Law on Arson).

PD 1613: This decree simplified the prosecution of arson and increased penalties. It categorizes arson based on the nature of the building (inhabited, public, etc.).
Article 50 (RPC): This provides the basis for the penalty of a frustrated felony. Generally, the penalty for a frustrated crime is one degree lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony.

Evidentiary Requirements

To prove frustrated arson, the prosecution typically relies on:

Ocular Inspection: Reports showing the presence of incendiary materials and the exact extent of the "burn" marks.
Expert Testimony: Fire marshals testifying that the acts performed were sufficient to destroy the building had it not been for the intervention.
Proof of Malice: Evidence that the fire was not accidental (e.g., electrical shorts) but was a deliberate act of the accused.