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 Mandaya’s 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:
 Intod’s 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.