SUBJECT
Criminal Law 1
Title: Sulpicio Intod vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines
PONENTE: Justice Campos Jr.
KEYWORDS: Impossible Crimes, Art. 14 Par. 2, inherently impossible, legal impossibility, SC
FAVORED THE PETITIONER
Name, petitioner (CAPITALIZED)
SULPICIO INTOD
Nature of the case: Petitioner seeks from the SC a modification of the RTC and CA’s judgment of attempted murder of holding him liable only for an impossible crime.
FACTS
 In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio
Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and
Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya’s
house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental and asked him to go with them to
the house of Bernadina Palangpangan.
 Thereafter, they had a meeting with Aniceto
Dumalagan, he told Mandaya that he wanted
Palangpangan to be killed because of a land
dispute between them and that Mandaya
should accompany the four (4) men otherwise
he would also be killed.
 About 10’o clock in the evening of the same
day, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and
Daligdig all armed with firearms arrived in
Palangpangan’s house. Mandaya pointed the
location of Palangpangan’s bedroom and fired
the room. However, that day Palangpangan was
PRINCIPLE ( Indicate Article if applicable)
Impossible Crimes (Ar4. 4, Par 2.)
Name, respondent (CAPITALIZED):
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ISSUE/S
(Check syllabus, dapat related lang sa Subject
& Topic)
1. WON the crime committed is
impossible crime?
ANSWER: YES.
Date Written: October 21, 1992
G.R.No. 103119
RULING
1. In the case at bar, the act performed by the offender cannot
produce an offense against person or property because:
(a) The commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment;
(b) The means employed is either (i) inadequate or (ii) ineffectual
means. This is provided in Art. 14, par. 2 under the RPC. 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 impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in
order to qualify the act of an impossible crime.
2. The legal impossibility occurs when the intended acts, even if
completed would not amount to a crime:
(a) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in
violation of the law;
(b) There is intention to perform the physical act;
(c) There is a performance of the intended physical act;
(d) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not
amount to a crime.
 not around and her home was occupied by her The factual situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility which
son-in-law and his family. No one was in the rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. The petitioner
room. No one was hit by the gun fire. shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality,
 Petitioner and his companions were identified the victim was not present of the place, thus petitioner failed to accomplish
his end. Under Art. 4, par. 2 of the RPC, such is sufficient to make an act
by the witnesses. One of the witness testified
impossible crime.
that before they left the premises, they
shouted: “We will kill you (the witness) and
especially Bernadina Palangpangan and we will
come back (sic) if you were not injured”
 After the trial, RTC convicted Intod of
attempted murder. The CA affirmed the holding
the petitioner guilty of attempted murder.
Hence, he petitioned to the SC a modification of
the judgment holding him liable only for
impossible crime under Art.4 Par. 2 of the RPC.
 Petitioner contends that Palangpangan’s
absence from her room on the night he and his
companions riddled made the crime inherently
impossible.

MTC Ruling: None .

MeTC ruling: None.

CFI/ RTC ruling: Not stated in the case. But convicted

the petitioner of attempted murder.

CA ruling: Not stated. But affirmed the RTC’s conviction

of attempted murder.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, 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 as penalize under Article 14, paragraph 2 and 59 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by the Petitioner, this court 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.
Notes: ** factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. One
example is the 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

**In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself.
Furthermore, 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.
PERSONS Doctrine: Duty of Judges (Art. 9 of CC)

Title: CHU JAN v. BERNAS

Ponente: ARAULLO, J. Date: Aug. 1, 1916

Keywords: Cockfighting; P160 wager; Customs; SC ruled IN FAVOR OF GR No. L-10010

PLAINTIFF

CHUA JAN, plaintiff-appellee LUCIO BERNAS, defendant-appellant

Nature of the case: Appeal from the decision of CFI Albay

FACTS ISSUE/S RULING

 June 26, 1913: Afternoon match
between Chu Jan and Bernas.
Bernas won.
 Chu Jan sued Bernas in Justice
Peace of Court, asking his rooster be
declared the winner. JPC decided it as
a draw.
CFI Ruling:
Sept. 11, 1913: DISMISSED APPEAL
without special finding as to costs. Plaintiff
elevated the case to SC.
1. WON the CFI of Albay
erred in dismissing the
case.-- YES!
1. The grounds of dismissal is that the court has always
dismissed cases of this nature, that he is not familiar with
the rules governing cockfights; he does not know where to
find the law on the subject and he knows no law that
governs the rights concerning cockfights, such are not
reasons that can serve to excuse the court for dismissing
the proceedings without deciding the issues.
Foreseeing that a case might not arise to which no law
would exactly be applicable, 2nd par of CC 6 provides
 that the customs of the place shall be observed, and in
the absence thereof, the general principles of law.

WHEREFORE the judgement and the order appealed from, herein mentioned, are REVERSED and to the record of the proceedings shall remanded
to the court from whence they came for due trial and judgement as provided by law. No special finding is made with regards to costs. So ordered.

Notes: ARTICLE 9 CC. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.