SULPICO INTOD VS CA

G.R. No. 103119

CAMPOS, JR. J.
Facts: In the morning of February 4, 1979, the petitioner and other 3 men went to Mandayas
house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental, and asked him to come with them to
Bernardina Palangpangans house. Thereafter they had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan
asking the four men to kill Palangpangan due to a land dispute. On the same day about 10 PM,
all 5 men went to Palangpangans house armed with firearms. Mandaya pointed to
Palangpangans bedroom and the other men fired at the said room. However Palangpangan
was in another city and no one was harmed by the gun fire. The petitioner seeks a modification
of the charge attempted murder citing Art. 4 paragraph 2 of the RPC, which talks about
impossible crimes.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of attempted murder

Held: No, although the petitioner had the intent to kill Palangpangan, the mere fact that
Palangpangan was in another city made it clear that there was phyisical impossibility to
accomplish the crime. This alone is sufficient under Art. 4 paragraph 2 of the RPC.

~The case cites cases from the U.S. where legal impossibility (You cant kill a deadman),
factual/physical impossibility (Man puts hand on anothers coat intending to steal a wallet, but
finds pocket empty), is used as a DEFENSE whether that person is guilty of attempting to the
crime. However in the Philippines, impossible crimes are RECOGNIZED and are penalized itself.
The RPC Art. 4(2) makes no distinction between factual and legal impossibility (Ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos), such that both are sufficient to make the act an
impossible crime