INTOD vs CA (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992

SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner,

vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:.

Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.

Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder. The court (RTC), as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, holding that Petitioner was guilty of attempted murder. Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible crime.

ISSUE:

Whether the crime committed is impossible crime.

RULING:

Yes. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus, legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:

1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; 

2) there is intention to perform the physical act; 

3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and 

4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. 

The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category. 

On the other hand, 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. 

The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.

In Philippine jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself.

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 and penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.