The Stages of Felony in Philippine Criminal Law: Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated (Demo)

In criminal law, every step matters. From the first move to the final blow, the law marks each stage and the penalties progress together with the weight of the act. Under the Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, felonies unfold like time itself: the attempted felony is the future tense, a blueprint drawn, the hammer raised but not yet brought down; the frustrated felony is the present tense, a sentence begun but cut short mid-word, the result halted by forces beyond the actor’s will; and the consummated felony is the past tense, the deed written in the record, the period already inked. Delving into these stages helps us see why each tense of action fixes the measure of liability for one’s guilt.

The Revised Penal code defines the three stages as:

1. Consummated – All legal elements are present; the felony is completed. Examples include:

• Homicide/Murder: The victim dies from the inflicted wounds.
• Theft: The property is taken and carried away with intent to gain.

2. Frustrated – All acts of execution are done and would ordinarily produce the felony, but the result is prevented by causes independent of the offender’s will. Examples include:

• Homicide: A shoots B in a vital area; B survives because of timely medical treatment.
• Robbery: A subdues the guard and opens the vault, but an automatic lockdown prevents any taking.

3. Attempted – The offender begins the felony by overt acts but fails to perform all acts of execution due to a cause or accident other than spontaneous desistance.Examples include:

• Homicide: A swings a knife to stab B but is restrained before landing a blow.
• Theft: A reaches into a bag to take a phone but is caught before taking it.

Making all acts, consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

Penalty Rules

Article 50-57 of The Revised Penal Code lowers penalties depending on both the stage of the crime and the  role of the offender. Here is a  matrix of overall degree reductions.

In sum, classifying the offense by stage (consummated, frustrated, attempted) and role (principal, accomplice, accessory) determines the degree of penalty. Start from the penalty for the consummated offense by a principal, then reduce by one or two degrees depending on stage, and reduce further based on participation (accomplices: minus one more; accessories: minus two more at the same stage).

Albeit, light felonies are punishable only when consummated, except those against persons or property, which may be punished even in attempted or frustrated stages. Nonetheless, liability still arises even when the intended felony cannot be produced because the object is impossible or the means is inadequate/ineffectual (e.g., stealing from an empty pocket). In addition, certain felonies, such as theft, do not admit a frustrated stage. In Valenzuela v. People, the Supreme Court held that there is no crime of frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code because theft is consummated the moment the offender gains possession of the property, regardless of later disposition. Thus, theft can only be attempted or consummated, not frustrated.¹

Jurisprudence

Although there is often a fine line between the three stages, their application ultimately hinges on the specific crime committed. In the case of People vs. XXX62846, attempted rape was hard to prove because the lower courts treated the attempted stage as if it required penile contact or partial penetration, blurring the line between rape and lesser offenses. Under the attempted stage of felony, what matters is the offender’s overt acts that directly commence rape—acts which, if not interrupted by an external cause, would naturally ripen into consummated rape. The Supreme Court clarified that no genital contact is required for attempt; the direct, unequivocal steps toward penetration and interruption by the victim’s knee strike satisfy the attempted stage.²

1.  Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
   ↩︎
2.  People vs. XXX62846, G.R. No. 262846, February 18, 2025
   ↩︎

Please follow and like us: