Topic – Impossible Crimes (Factual Impossibility and Legal Impossibility-the same; both punishable)

Intod vs. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992

FACTS:
The case is an appeal by Sulpicio Intod of the decision by Court of Appeals convicting him of
the crime of attempted murder. The facts of the case mentioned that:
 Intod together with his companions, Jorge Pangasinan, Santos Tubio, Avelino Daigdig
and Salvador Mandaya made a plot to kill Bernardina Palampangan, because of a land
dispute between the accused and the latter. Hence, on that night, equipped with
firearms, Intod together with the said men headed to Palampangan’s house and opened
fire at Palampangan’s bedroom. It turned out however, that Palampangan was not
home, but in another city. Luckily since Palampangan’s family who were home, was also
not inside her bedroom, no one was hurt or hit by the gunfire. As Intod and his
companions were positively identified by witnesses, Intod was thereafter convicted of
attempted murder by the RTC and CA.
 Intod questions the decision of the lower court and argues that if at most, he should
only be held liable for an impossible crime, citing Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code,
because Palampangan’s absence made it factually and inherently impossible for him and
his companions to commit the crime, even though they opened fire at her bedroom.
 Hence, the present appeal.

ISSUE:
Is the offense committed by the petitioner, an impossible crime and should therefore
warrant a modification of the charge of attempted murder?

RULING:
Yes. The court ruled that the offense committed by petitioner falls under factual
impossibility. Factual impossibility (also Physical Impossibility) occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
intended crime. In this case, since the accused shot at the place where he thought his
victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not present, then the the accused failed
to accomplish the crime and the offense therefore was a factual impossibility.

Under the law, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised
Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal
impossibility (Ubi lex nondistinguit nec nos distinguiere debemos.), since it is still punishable
by law, nevertheless.

Therefore, the court granted the petition and modified the decision, instead finding
petitioner guilty only of an Impossible crime, and not Attempted Murder. Hence, the court
sentenced him only to 6 months arresto mayor and the accessory penalties.

By Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 1