051. Intod v.

CA
GR No. 103119 | October 21, 1992, | Second Division
Campos
Digest by PS Magno

Short Version:

Intod, et al, go to the house of his supposed victim. They fire bullets into her bedroom. The door was closed.
Supposed victim was not in her house during that time. Is there a crime? No! Its an impossible crime!

Facts:
Intod, et al went to Palangpangan (the supposed victim) house. He tells his companions that he wanted
Palangpangan dead because of a land dispute between Palangpangan and him.

They were armed with firearms, and arrived at the supposed victims house. One of them points to the
location of the victims bedroom. They open fire. It turned out however, that Palangpangan was in another
city during that time. The house was occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room
when Intod, et al, fired the shots. No one was hurt.

RTC comvicts Intod, et al, of attempted murder.

Intod contests this.

Issue and Dispositive:

Is there a crime? No. It was an impossible crime.

Ratio:
Intod:
Palangpangans absence from the room during that time made the crime inherently impossible
OSG:
The facts are sufficient to constitute an attempt and to sustain the conviction
OSG cites several cases from US jurisprudence

SC: There is a difference between between US jurisprudence and PH statute.

US Jurisprudence: distinguishes between legal impossibility and factual impossibility
o Legal impossibility:
The motive desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
There is intention to perform the physical act
There is a performance of the intended physical act
The consequence resulting from the intended act does NOT amount to a crime
Ex. Killing an already dead person
o Factual impossibility:
When extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime
When a pickpocket puts his hand in a pocket with intention to steal, but the pocket
is empty
Legal impossibility does NOT amount to a crime
o No person should be held criminally liable for an act which was not made criminal by the
law
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense against the prosecution
 o The facts would still amount to an ATTEMPT to commit a crime

PH statute: No such distinction

o RPC 4(2) expressly provides for impossible crimes and MAKES THEM PUNISHABLE
o The impossibility of accomplishing a criminal intent is NOT a defense, but an act penalized
by itself
o Under this, the act performed cannot produce an offense against persons or property
because
1. The commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment, OR
2. The means employed is EITHER
a. Inadequate, OR
b. Ineffectual
o There is no distinction between legal or factual impossibilities
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos
o Upholding the OSG would render RPC 4(2) wholly inoperative

CA is wrong in convicting Intod of Attempted Murder. Changed to guilty of an Impossible Crime. Having in
mind the social danger and degree of criminality (by Intod), he is sentenced to 6 months of arresto mayor.

Feliciano, Regalado, Nocon, concur.

Narvasa, on official leave.