What Is the Difference Between Attempted and Frustrated Robbery?

Introduction

Philippine criminal law recognizes different stages in the commission of a felony. In robbery cases, distinguishing an attempted robbery from a frustrated robbery depends principally on whether the offender performed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the crime.

The distinction becomes especially important when a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. In that situation, Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code imposes a specific penalty for attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide. The prosecution must still establish the elements of robbery, the stage reached by the offense, and the causal connection between the robbery and the homicide.

What Law Governs the Stages of Robbery?

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that felonies may be consummated, frustrated, or attempted. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution that should produce the felony, but the crime is not produced because of causes independent of the offender’s will.

A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution. The failure must result from a cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance.

Robbery itself is defined in Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. Its basic elements are:

• There is a taking of personal property.
• The property belongs to another.
• The taking is accompanied by intent to gain.
• The taking is accomplished through violence against or intimidation of a person, or through force upon things.

The Supreme Court summarized these requirements in Poquiz et al. v. People, G.R. No. 238715, 2021, explaining that robbery may be consummated once the offender gains possession of the property, even if the offender has no opportunity to dispose of it and the property is later recovered.

What Is Attempted Robbery?

Attempted robbery exists when the offender begins the execution of the robbery through direct overt acts but does not complete all acts necessary to produce the taking.

For example, an accused may point a firearm at a victim and demand the victim’s wallet, but the victim may immediately escape before surrendering any property. The accused has commenced the robbery through overt acts, but the taking has not occurred. The offense may therefore remain at the attempted stage, provided that the accused did not voluntarily abandon the criminal design.

The essential requirements are:

• The offender directly commences the commission of robbery through overt acts.
• The offender does not perform all acts of execution necessary to produce the taking.
• The failure is caused by an external circumstance or accident.
• The offender does not freely and spontaneously desist.

In Marasigan v. Fuentes, et al., G.R. No. 201310, 2016, the Court explained that overt acts must have a direct connection with the intended felony. Mere preparation, suspicion, or possession of instruments commonly used in robbery is not enough without conduct showing that the execution of the offense has begun.

What Is Frustrated Robbery?

Frustrated robbery would theoretically arise when the offender performs all acts of execution that should produce the robbery, but the taking is not completed because of a cause independent of the offender’s will.

However, the classification must be applied carefully. In ordinary robbery, the crime is generally consummated once the offender obtains possession of the property, even if the possession is brief and even if the property is immediately recovered. This principle was reaffirmed in Poquiz et al. v. People.

Accordingly, a supposed “frustrated robbery” situation must be examined to determine whether the offender actually obtained possession. If possession was acquired, the robbery may already be consummated. If the offender did not complete the acts necessary for the taking, the offense is ordinarily attempted rather than frustrated.

The general distinction between frustrated and attempted felonies was restated in People of the Philippines v. Pilen, G.R. No. 254875, 2023:

• In a frustrated felony, the offender performs all acts of execution, but the felony does not result because of an independent cause.
• In an attempted felony, the offender performs only some acts of execution, and the crime is not completed because of an external cause other than spontaneous desistance.

How Does Article 297 Apply?

Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code specifically provides:

When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.

Article 297 therefore applies when three circumstances coexist:

• The accused committed either attempted or frustrated robbery.
• A homicide was committed by reason or on the occasion of that robbery.
• The homicide does not call for a higher penalty under another provision of the Revised Penal Code.

The phrase “by reason or on the occasion” is broad. The homicide need not be the precise means used to obtain the property. It is sufficient that the killing was connected with the robbery, occurred during its execution, or was committed to facilitate the robbery, prevent identification, preserve possession, or escape after the offense.

Attempted Robbery with Homicide Versus Frustrated Robbery with Homicide

The principal difference lies in the stage of the robbery, not in the fact of the homicide.

Point of comparison	Attempted robbery with homicide	Frustrated robbery with homicide
Acts of execution	Not all acts necessary to produce the robbery were performed.	All acts necessary to produce the robbery were performed.
Reason for failure	An external cause prevented completion before all acts were performed.	An external cause prevented the intended result despite completion of all acts.
Property taken	Ordinarily, no possession of the property was obtained.	The classification requires careful analysis because possession may make the robbery consummated.
Homicide	A homicide occurred by reason or on the occasion of the attempted robbery.	A homicide occurred by reason or on the occasion of the frustrated robbery.
Governing provision	Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.	Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.

What Evidence Is Needed?

Proof of the Intended Robbery

The prosecution must show the accused’s intent to obtain property belonging to another through violence, intimidation, or force upon things. Evidence may include threats, demands for money or property, the use of weapons, forced entry, taking of belongings, possession of stolen property, and coordinated acts among the accused.

Intent to gain is an internal state, but it may be inferred from overt conduct. In Poquiz et al. v. People, the Court recognized that intent to gain may be presumed from the forcible taking of useful property belonging to another unless circumstances show a different purpose.

Proof of Direct Overt Acts

For an attempted robbery charge, evidence must establish more than planning or preparation. The accused must have performed acts directly connected with the execution of the robbery, such as pointing a weapon, restraining the victim, demanding property, forcibly opening a container, or beginning the removal of property.

The acts must be sufficiently connected to the intended offense. Mere presence at the scene, possession of a weapon, or association with the principal offender does not automatically prove an attempted robbery.

Proof of the Stage of the Offense

The prosecution must identify the exact point at which the robbery failed. It should establish whether:

• The offenders were stopped before completing all acts of execution;
• The property was never placed under their possession;
• The offender had already obtained possession, even briefly;
• The failure resulted from police intervention, resistance by the victim, interruption by a third person, or another external cause; and
• The accused did not voluntarily abandon the criminal purpose.

The Information should also allege the material facts supporting the stage of the felony. A general allegation that the accused “attempted” or “frustrated” the robbery may create issues if the factual allegations do not show how the offense reached that stage.

Proof of the Homicide

For Article 297 to apply, the prosecution must prove that a person died and that the killing was connected with the attempted or frustrated robbery. The death certificate, autopsy findings, medical testimony, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and the surrounding circumstances may establish the killing and its connection to the robbery.

Article 297 uses “homicide” in a generic sense. Depending on the proven facts, the killing may involve circumstances that warrant a higher penalty under the Revised Penal Code. Article 297 itself recognizes this qualification by stating that its penalty does not apply when the homicide deserves a higher penalty under another provision.

Why Frustrated Robbery Requires Careful Classification

The doctrine on possession is particularly important. In robbery, the offense is generally completed when the offender obtains possession of the property. The offender need not have uninterrupted control, permanent deprivation of the victim, or an opportunity to sell or use the property.

Thus, if an offender grabs a victim’s bag and briefly carries it away before being apprehended, the robbery may be consummated rather than frustrated. Recovery of the property does not ordinarily erase the taking.

By contrast, if the offender merely threatens the victim but is prevented from taking any property, the offense may be attempted robbery. The facts must show whether the accused had performed all acts required to produce the taking or had only begun the execution.

Illustrative Examples

Example 1: Attempted Robbery with Homicide

A group points firearms at a store owner and orders him to open the cash drawer. Before any money is taken, a police officer arrives. One offender shoots and kills the officer while the group flees.

If the prosecution proves that the accused had begun the robbery but did not perform all acts necessary to obtain the money, and that the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery, Article 297 may apply.

Example 2: Consummated Robbery with Homicide

An offender takes a victim’s cellphone and wallet after threatening the victim with a knife. The offender is arrested moments later and the property is recovered.

The robbery may already be consummated because the offender obtained possession. The later recovery of the property does not necessarily convert the offense into attempted or frustrated robbery.

Example 3: No Attempted Robbery

A person is found near a closed store carrying a mask and a screwdriver, but no evidence shows that the person opened the store, confronted anyone, or began taking property.

Without direct overt acts connected with the execution of robbery, the evidence may establish preparation or suspicious conduct, but not necessarily attempted robbery.

Practical Points for Case Assessment

Lawyers assessing a robbery charge should compare the allegations in the Information with the evidence presented at trial. The decisive facts are not merely the accused’s intention or the presence of a weapon, but the acts actually performed and the point at which the offense was interrupted.

The following questions are useful:

• What property was targeted?
• Was there violence, intimidation, or force upon things?
• Did the accused obtain possession of the property?
• Were all acts necessary to produce the taking performed?
• What external event prevented completion?
• Was the accused’s failure caused by spontaneous desistance?
• Was the homicide committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery?
• Do the facts support a penalty higher than that stated in Article 297?

Medical and forensic evidence is especially important where the prosecution relies on the homicide component. Testimony regarding the cause of death, weapon used, wound pattern, and timing may connect the killing to the robbery and identify the participation of each accused.

Conclusion

Attempted robbery occurs when the offender begins the robbery through direct overt acts but does not complete all acts of execution. Frustrated robbery occurs when all acts of execution have been performed but the robbery fails because of an independent cause.

In practice, the more significant inquiry is often whether the offender obtained possession of the property. If possession was acquired, the robbery may be consummated even if the property was immediately recovered. Article 297 applies when an attempted or frustrated robbery is accompanied by a homicide committed by reason or on the occasion of that robbery, subject to the possibility of a higher penalty under the Revised Penal Code.

A sound case assessment should therefore identify the property targeted, the acts performed, the cause of interruption, the presence or absence of possession, the evidence of intent to gain, and the connection between the robbery and the death.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.