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 Mandaya’s house

and asked the latter to comewith 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 performingtheir
planned crime. Mandaya pointed to the room of Palangpangan and petitioner andcompany fired at the
said room.

It turned out that Palangpangan was in another city, no one was in the room when the accusedfired
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 decisionheld by
the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner seeks from this court a modification of judgment byholding him
liable only for an impossible crime.

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

RULING:

Intod’s petition was granted, the crime committed by Intod was modified from AttemptedMurder 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 itnot 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
physicalimpossibility, that is, extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor beyond his controlprevent
the consummation of the intended crime.

Impossible Crime is recognized and punished here in the Philippines, as compared to, UnitedStates,
thus, judgment rendered by the US in similar nature with the case at bar should notapplied.

Impossible Crimes constitutes a criminal liability, in order to, punish the criminal intent.