The Aggravating Circumstance of Multiple Persons Assembled: The Cassation Court Ruling No. 25175/2025 and the Factual Allegation

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, the correct application of aggravating circumstances is of crucial importance, directly impacting the severity of the offense and, consequently, the penalty. Among these, the aggravating circumstance of an offense committed by multiple assembled persons (governed by Article 110 of the Criminal Code and referenced by Article 585 for crimes against life and individual safety, such as voluntary personal injury under Art. 582 c.p.) is often the subject of debate, particularly regarding the methods of its allegation. In this context, the recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, judgment No. 25175 of June 5, 2025 (filed on July 9, 2025), offers a fundamental clarification, outlining the boundaries within which this aggravating circumstance can be considered legitimately alleged in fact.

The Aggravating Circumstance of "Multiple Persons Assembled": Regulatory Framework and Relevance

The aggravating circumstance of "multiple persons assembled" occurs when a crime is committed by at least two individuals acting in concert, being simultaneously in the same place or in a situation that increases the offensive or intimidating potential of the criminal action. This circumstance is provided for various types of offenses and, in the specific case of crimes against life and individual safety, applies pursuant to Article 585, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 110 c.p. Its relevance is evident: the presence of multiple individuals cooperating in committing an offense not only increases the dangerousness of the action but can also hinder the victim's defense, thus justifying an increased penalty.

The Legal Issue and the Cassation Court's Position

The pivotal point of the issue, often debated in courtrooms, concerns the methods of alleging this aggravating circumstance. Is it necessary for it to be explicitly mentioned in the indictment? Or is it sufficient for it to emerge from the facts described? Judgment No. 25175/2025, issued by the Fifth Criminal Section of the Cassation Court, with President R. Pezzullo and Rapporteur I. Scordamaglia, provided a clear and detailed answer, declaring the appeal of the defendant L. P.M. S. G. against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of L'Aquila inadmissible.

In matters of crimes against life and individual safety, the aggravating circumstance of multiple persons assembled must be considered legitimately alleged in fact when the presence of at least two co-perpetrators at the time of the commission of the crime can be inferred from the manner in which related or connected offenses were carried out, as described in their respective indictments, even if the defendant has been acquitted of such offenses, provided that the underlying material fact has been definitively ascertained.

This maxim is of fundamental importance and deserves careful analysis. The Court establishes that the aggravating circumstance can be alleged "in fact," meaning that its explicit formal mention in the indictment is not indispensable, as long as the factual elements that constitute it are clearly inferable. However, the real novelty, or rather, the clarification of a consolidated orientation (as referenced by previous maxims such as No. 22120 of 2022 or the United Sections No. 24906 of 2019), lies in the possibility of inferring the presence of co-perpetrators from "related or connected offenses."

This means that even if the defendant, as in the case of L. P.M. S. G., had been acquitted of the related or connected offenses, the aggravating circumstance could still be applied, provided that the "underlying material fact has been definitively ascertained." This is a principle aimed at ensuring the full application of criminal law, preventing mere procedural issues or the outcome of individual proceedings from hindering the correct qualification of the conduct. In other words, what matters is the factual reality, unequivocally ascertained, of the presence of multiple individuals at the time of the crime.

For the application of this principle, we can summarize the required conditions:

• The presence of at least two co-perpetrators at the time of the crime must be objectively verifiable.
• This presence can also be inferred from offenses connected or related to the main crime.
• The defendant may have been acquitted of the connected offenses, but the material fact relating to such offenses must have been definitively ascertained.
• The allegation occurs "in fact," meaning through the description of the concrete modalities of the crime's commission.

Practical Implications and Legal Protection

This ruling has significant implications for both the prosecution and the defense. For the Public Prosecutor, the judgment confirms a certain flexibility in drafting indictments, allowing for the valorization of factual elements that emerged even from different but connected proceedings. For the defense, however, a scrupulous analysis of all procedural documents, including those relating to connected or related offenses, is essential to contest the actual ascertainment of the material fact and its suitability to prove the presence of multiple assembled persons. It is crucial to verify that the ascertainment of the fact is "definitive" and not based on mere hypotheses or unproven indications.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 25175 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a significant reference point for the application of the aggravating circumstance of multiple persons assembled in crimes against life and individual safety. By reaffirming the principle of "in fact" allegation and expanding the possibility of inferring the presence of co-perpetrators from connected offenses, even in cases of acquittal, provided the fact is definitively ascertained, the Supreme Court aims to ensure greater adherence of the legal qualification to the procedural reality. This ruling underscores the importance of a thorough and meticulous analysis of factual elements, placing material truth at the center and highlighting the need for attentive and competent legal protection for all parties involved in criminal proceedings.