Cassazione Penale - Ordinanza n. 03987/2026

Key Facts

Issues

• The court examined the aggravating circumstance of 'minorata difesa' (weakened defense) due to the crime occurring at night. It clarified that nighttime commission alone can suffice if it concretely impaired public or private defense, and that surveillance presence does not negate this aggravating factor as it does not enable real-time detection (Sez. U, n. 40275/2021; Sez. 5, n. 12051/2021). The lower court's reasoning about night-time hindering immediate police intervention was upheld.
• The court addressed whether the theft was completed or attempted, referencing that in a monitored area with surveillance, the theft is considered completed as the surveillance aids in identification even if real-time detection is lacking. The judgment cited jurisprudence (Sez. 5, n. 54/2018; Sez. 5, n. 48880/2018) to affirm the lower court's application of principles distinguishing completed theft from attempted theft in such contexts.
• The court reviewed the denial of generic mitigating circumstances under art. 62-bis, noting that the lower court is not obligated to address all elements presented but only those deemed decisive. The judgment affirmed that the lower court's focus on relevant factors (e.g., the defendant's criminal history) was sufficient, and other unaddressed elements were either irrelevant or superseded (Sez. 2, n. 3609/2011; Sez. 6, n. 34364/2010).

Holdings

• The court declares the appeal inadmissible and orders the appellant to pay legal costs and a €3,000 fine to the Cassa delle ammende, as the submitted grounds do not meet the requirements for cassation review.
• The second ground of appeal is rejected as it is generic and fails to engage with the lower court's reasoning on the aggravating circumstance of 'minorata difesa' (reduced defense) during nighttime. The court reaffirms that nighttime commission of a crime can constitute 'minorata difesa' even with surveillance systems, as these systems aid post-factum identification but do not prevent real-time awareness of the crime (Sez. U, n. 40275 del 2021; Sez. 5, n. 12051 del 2021).
• The first ground of appeal is dismissed as it raises issues not admissible in cassation proceedings and is manifestly unfounded, as the applicant's arguments do not challenge the factual findings of the lower court regarding the completed theft (furto consumato) under the principle that theft is established when a third party's property is taken in a monitored area, even temporarily, as per relevant jurisprudence (Sez. 5, n. 54 del 2018; Sez. 5, n. 48880 del 2018).
• The third ground of appeal is dismissed as it is aspecific and fails to engage with the lower court's decision to deny general mitigating circumstances. The court confirms that the lower court was not obligated to address all favorable/unfavorable factors, only those deemed decisive, and such factual judgments are not reviewable in cassation (Sez. 2, n. 3609 del 2011; Sez. 6, n. 34364 del 2010; Sez. 5, n. 43952 del 2017).

Remedies

• condanna il ricorrente al pagamento della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delle ammende
• condanna il ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court applied the principle that a theft is consummated when the perpetrator takes possession of a third party's property in a monitored area, even if the monitoring system only aids in post-event identification. This was based on precedents (Sez. 5, n. 54/2018 and Sez. 5, n. 48880/2018).
• The court ruled that lower courts are not required to address all possible mitigating factors if they focus on decisive elements. This principle was derived from Sez. 2, n. 3609/2011 and Sez. 6, n. 34364/2010.
• The court upheld that committing a crime at night qualifies as the aggravating circumstance of 'minorata difesa' (weakened defense) unless other factors neutralize this effect. This aligns with Sez. U, n. 40275/2021 and Sez. 5, n. 12051/2021.

Precedent Name

• Sez. 4, n. 18826
• Sez. U, n. 40275
• Sez. 6, n. 34364
• Sez. 5, n. 48880
• Sez. 2, n. 3609
• Sez. 5, n. 54
• Sez. 5, n. 12051

Cited Statute

Judge Name

• Scordamaglia Irene
• Romano Michele

Passage Text

• integra il furto consumato - e non il furto tentato -la sottrazione di bene appartenente a un terzo avvenuta in zona monitorata da un sistema di videosorveglianza, considerato che il sistema di videosorveglianza rappresenta un mero ausilio a posteriori per l'individuazione degli autori dell'impossessamento del bene altrui (Sez. 5, n. 54 del 25/10/2018, dep. 2019, Rv. 274381 - 01), che non è impedito, sotto il profilo dell'autonoma disponibilità delle cose sottratte, anche se per un tempo limitato
• il giudice di merito, nel motivare il diniego della concessione delle attenuanti generiche, non deve necessariamente prendere in considerazione tutti gli elementi favorevoli o sfavorevoli dedotti dalle parti o rilevabili dagli atti, poiché è sufficiente che faccia riferimento a quelli ritenuti decisivi o comunque rilevanti, rimanendo disattesi o superati tutti gli altri
• la commissione del reato in tempo di notte è idonea ad integrare, anche in difetto di ulteriori circostanze di tempo, di luogo o di persona, la circostanza aggravante della cosiddetta 'minorata difesa', essendo peraltro sempre necessario che la pubblica o privata difesa ne siano rimaste in concreto ostacolate e che non ricorrano circostanze ulteriori, di natura diversa, idonee a neutralizzare il predetto effetto