Intod v.

CA

G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992

Lessons Applicable:

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:
February 4, 1979: Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig
went to Salvador Mandaya's house and asked him to go with them to the house of
Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan
who told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land
dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany them. Otherwise, he
would also be killed.
February 4, 1979 10:00 pm: All of them armed arrived at Palangpangan's house and
fired at Palangpangan's bedroom but there was no one in the room.
RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the testimony of the witness

ISSUE: W/N Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an impossible crime under Art. 4
(2)

HELD: YES. petition is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals
holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED. sentences him to
suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together with the accessory
penalties provided by the law, and to pay the costs

Art. 4(2). CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred:

xxx xxx 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.
Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and
his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible.
The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the offender
his formidability to punish criminal tendencies in Art. 4(2)
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not
amount to a crime
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
1. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
2. there is intention to perform the physical act
3. there is a performance of the intended physical act
4. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime
o Ex: The impossibility of killing a person already dead
 Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor
or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime this case
o Ex: man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal
the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty
United States: where the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible or
accomplishment - attempt to commit a crime; legally impossible of accomplishment -
cannot be held liable for any crime

CRIMINAL LAW I
CASE DIGESTS

ARTICLE IV: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

INTOD VS. CA

FACTS:

Ponente: Justice Campos, JR. 1992

Petitioner:
Sulpicio Intod

Respondent:
Court of Appeals

Victim:
Bernardina Palangpangan

Accessories:
Pangasian
Tubio
Daligdig
Mandaya

Events:
Intod, Pangasian, Tubio, and Daligdig went to Mandayas house and asked the
latter to come with them in killing Palangpangan or else he would also be killed.
Intod wanted to kill Palangpangan because of a land dispute between them.
10:00pm of that same day, Petitioner, together with his accessories, commenced
in performing their planned crime. Mandaya pointed to the room of
Palangpangan and petitioner and company fired at the said room.
It turned out that Palangpangan was in another city, no one was in the room
when the accused fired shots, and no one was hit by the gun fire.
Filling of the Case:
Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of Attempted Murder.
The decision of RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:
Intod filed a petition for review of the affirmation made by the Court of Appeals
of the decision held by the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner seeks from this court a
modification of judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible crime.

W/N the act committed by Intod and his accomplices constitutes an Impossible
Crime.

RULING:
Intods petition was granted, the crime committed by Intod was modified from
Attempted Murder to an Impossible Crime.
Article 4 Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code States:

Criminal Liability shall be incurred:

b. By a person committing 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.

The case at far constitutes an inherent impossibility to perform the act due to
factual or physical impossibility, that is, extraneous circumstances unknown to
the actor beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
Impossible Crime is recognized and punished here in the Philippines, as
compared to, United States, thus, judgment rendered by the US in similar nature
with the case at bar should not applied.
Impossible Crimes constitutes a criminal liability, in order to, punish the criminal
intent.