Related Provisions:
INTOD vs. COURT OF APPEALS
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
October 21, 1992
CAMPOS, JR., J.
SUMMARY:
Aniceto Dumalagan had a land dispute with Bernardina
Palangpangan which resulted to the former ordering 4
people to kill the latter. The group went to the house of
Bernardina Palangpangan and fired at the location of her
bedroom. During the shooting, Palangpangan was in
another city and her home was then occupied by her son-
in-law and his family. No one got hurt by the shooting.
Petitioner is appealing that his liability be changed from
attempted murder to impossible crime.
ISSUE: WON petitioner should be charged with
attempted murder
FACTS:
1. Sulpico Intod (petitioner), Jorge Pangasian,
Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to
Salvador Mandaya’s house in Katugasan, Misamis
Occidental and asked him to go with them to the
house of Bernardina Palangpangan.
2. Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and
Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan.
He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan
to be killed because of a land dispute and that
Mandaya should accompany the four men,
otherwise, he would also be killed.
3. At 10 pm of the same day, petitioner, mandaya,
pangasian, tubio and Daligdig armed with
firemars, arrived at Palangpangan’s house in
Misamis Ocidental. At Mandaya pointed the
location of Palangpangan’s bedroom. Petitioner,
Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at aid room.
It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in
another City and her home was then occupied by
her son-in-law and his family. No one was hit by
the gun fire.
HOLDING:
1. No. Unlike in American Jurisprudence, Article 4
(2) of the Revised Penal Code recognizes and
punishes impossible crimes.
2. Under Article 4 (2) of the RPC, the act performed
by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property because the
commission of the offense is inherently
impossible of accomplishment
3. To be impossible under this clause, the act
intended by the offender must be by its nature
one impossible of accomplishment. There must
be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in
order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
4. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond
his control prevent the consummation of the
intended crime. Example: Man who puts his hand
in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter’s wallet and fins the pocket empty.
The case belong to this category. (which is the
similar with this case)
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED,
the decision of respondent Court of Appeals holding
Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby
MODIFIED. WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an
impossible crime as defined and penalized in Articles 4,
paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code,
respectively
Article 4 (2), RPC
Criminal liability. – Criminal liability
shall be incurred:
Xxx
2. By any person performing an act
which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Article 59, RPC
Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to
commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are
impossible. – When the person intending to
commit an offense has already performed
the acts for the execution of the same but
nevertheless the crime was not produced
by reason of the fact that the act intended
was by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment or because the means
employed by such person are essentially
inadequate to produce the result desired by
him, the court, having in mind the social
danger and the degree of criminality shown
by the offender, shall impose upon him the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging
from 200 to 500 pesos.