Facts
In a judgment dated February 5, 1988, the Assize Court of the Canton of Ticino had found A. and B. guilty of attempted robbery and completed robbery, both aggravated because they were committed in a gang and with dangerous weapons, as well as punishable preparatory acts of robbery and other minor offenses.
The punishable preparatory acts of robbery concerned three incidents: two in which A. and B. had participated, and one in which only A. had participated. In the first incident, A. and Rino had planned a robbery against a service station, but had not carried it out due to lack of courage. In the second incident, A., B. and C. had planned to rob a Migros cash transport, but had abandoned the plan due to C.'s attitude. In the third incident, A. and B. had planned a robbery of the post office in D., but had abandoned it after discovering the existence of an armored van.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Sottoceneri region, annulling the judgment of the Criminal Cassation and Review Court of the Canton of Ticino that had acquitted A. and B. of the punishable preparatory acts of robbery.
According to the Federal Tribunal, in the three incidents in question, A. and B. did not perform acts that could be interpreted as a spontaneous desistance from the punishable preparatory acts, as required by Art. 260bis para. 2 of the…