Impossible Crime

Intod v Court of Appeals

Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred: 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or in effectual means.
What makes it interesting?
In this case, impossible crime was clearly differentiated from attempted felony.
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, Intod and
company commenced in performing their planned crime. Mandaya pointed to the room of
Palangpangan and they fired at the said room. However, she was in another city then thus they
hit no one.
Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of Attempted Murder. The decision of RTC was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, Intod filed a petition for review of the affirmation made
by the Court of Appeals. He seeks modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for
an impossible crime, citing Article 4 section 2 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred: 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or in effectual means.
The respondent pointed out that the crime of murder was not consummated, not because
of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, but due to a cause or accident other than
accused own spontaneous desistance. Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time. Had it
not been for this fact, the crime is possible, not impossible.
The court ruled however that to uphold the contention of the respondent, that the offense
was an attempted murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause
independent of the will of the actor, will render useless the provision in Article 4 and that all
circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident
independent of the will of the actor.
To be considered as Impossible Crime the following elements shall be observed:
1.
2.

That a person performs an act which could be an offense against another person.
That he has an evil intent

3.

That the crime he intended to commit is impossible of being consummated, either

because of PHYSICAL OR LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY or the MEANS EMPLOYED IS
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL.
4.
Provided that the act should not constitute violation of any other provision of the revised
penal code.

To qualify as an impossible crime, there must be either legal impossibility or physical

impossibility of accomplishing the intended act. The case of Intod constitutes an
inherent impossibility to perform the act due to factual or physical impossibility, that is, the
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor and beyond his control. It prevented the
consummation of the intended crime. If the crime could have been committed had the
circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime
was impossible of commission.
The petition of Intod was hereby granted. Decision of CA modified. Intod guilty of an impossible
crime.