CRIMINAL LAW I CASE DIGESTS

ARTICLE IV: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

INTOD VS. CA FACTS: Ponente: Justice Campos, JR. 1992 Petitioner: Sulpicio Intod Respondent: Court of Appeals Victim: Bernardina Palangpangan Accessories: Pangasian Tubio Daligdig Mandaya Events: 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, Petitioner, together with his accessories, commenced in performing their planned crime. Mandaya pointed to the room of Palangpangan and petitioner and company fired at the said room. It turned out that Palangpangan was in another city, no one was in the room when the accused fired shots, and no one was hit by the gun fire. Filling of the Case: Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of Attempted Murder. The decision of RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUES: Intod filed a petition for review of the affirmation made by the Court of Appeals of the decision held by the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner seeks from this court a modification of judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible crime. W/N the act committed by Intod and his accomplices constitutes an Impossible Crime.

RULING: Intods petition was granted, the crime committed by Intod was modified from Attempted Murder to an Impossible Crime. Article 4 Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code States: Criminal Liability shall be incurred: b. By a person committing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. The case at far constitutes an inherent impossibility to perform the act due to factual or physical impossibility, that is, extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Impossible Crime is recognized and punished here in the Philippines, as compared to, United States, thus, judgment rendered by the US in similar nature with the case at bar should not applied. Impossible Crimes constitutes a criminal liability, in order to, punish the criminal intent.