002 INTOD v.

CA
October 21, 1992 | Campos, Jr., J. | Impossible Crime

PETITIONER/S: Arnelito Adlawan

RESPONDENTS: Emeterio M. Adlawan and Narcisa M. Adlawan

SUMMARY: Ancieto Dumalagan hired Intod, Pangasian, Tubio, Daligdig and

Mandaya to kill Bernardina Palangpangan due to land dispute between Anciento and
her. On that same night, Intod et al went to Bernardina’s home, Mandaya pointed to
her room, and the men, armed with firearms, fired at the room. However, Bernardina
was apparently in another city and so the armed men fired at an empty room and hit
no one. After positive identification by witnesses, Bernardian’s son-in-law and his
family were staying at her house at the time of the shooting, Intod was convicted of
attempted murder. On appeal, CA affirmed the convction. Hence, this petition. The
issue is w/n Intod should be liable only for impossible crime (since bernardina was
not in her room at the time of the shooting), not attempted murder. The SC ruled that
Intod should be held liable only for impossible crime and sentenced to 6 months of
arresto mayor. The case at bar belongs to the physical impossibility category i.e.
Intod was shooting at the place where he thought his victim would be, although in
reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, Intod failed to accomplish
his end. To uphold the contention of the People that the offense was Attempted
Murder because the absence of Bernardina was a supervening cause independent of
the actor’s will, will render useless the provision in Article 4, which makes a person
criminally liable for an act “which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment”

DOCTRINE: Impossible crime – to be impossible, the act intended by the offender

must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1)
legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in
order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.