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.