Criminal law: IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Under article 4, these are the means on how a person can incur criminal
liability. And under paragraph 2 it pertains to IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.

Basically, Impossible crime is not a felony, because it is just an act. An act

that would be an offense against person or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

But why is it being punished, since it is not a felony? The answer is that it is
being punished because of the CRIMINAL MIND OF THE OFFENDER.

So, in order for a person to incur impossible crime these are the following
elements:

1. That a person performs an act which could be an offense against

another person.
2. That he has an evil intent
3. That the crime he intended to commit is impossible of being
consummated, either because of PHYSICAL OR LEGAL
IMPOSSIBILITY or the MEANS EMPLOYED IS INADEQUATE OR
INEFFECTUAL.
4. Provided that the act should not constitute violation of any other
provision of the revised penal code.

PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY:

Physical impossibility has been actualized in the case of INTOD VS

PEOPLE[1] In this case, Intod wants to kill his enemy and because of that
he goes to house of his enemy. The laborer whom intod had inquired, on
where the victim could be found pointed to a room in the house. “Nandyn
lang po sa kwarto dyn (He was in that room)” So Intod armed with his
armalite riffle, fired shots at the room only to discover that, the intended
victim had gone to another place. In this case, the SC held that Intod is only
liable for impossible crime, because there is this physical impossibility to kill
the intended victim.

INEFFECTUAL MEANS:

Example: A person intending to kill his rival and invited his rival, and then
the offender pick a bottle believing it contains person and pour it in the
drink of his rival but despite the fact the bottle is almost finished he is still
asking for more. Then he found that the bottle he poured is just sugar and
not poison. Here there is an intent to kill the victim but because of some
ineffectual means the intended crime was not consummated. However, he
is guilty of impossible crime.
LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY:

X who lost his wrist watch to a snatcher and wanted to own a wrist watch
again. He pickpocket in Quiapo a wrist watch, when he examined he
discovered that it was the same wrist watch that was snatched by the
snatcher. This is an example of impossible crime by means of legal
impossibility because it is legally impossible for the owner of that thing to
be liable for theft. He has an evil intent on that time but there was a legal
impossibility of committing theft.

LAST ELEMENT: Provided that the act should not constitute violation of
any other provision of the revised penal code.

The last element is one of the most important elements in impossible crime.
Because if there are other crimes that has been committed before the
supposed impossible crime has been consummated then there is no
impossible crime.

EXAMPLE: X is a suitor of a pretty woman. But his offer of love was not
accepted by the woman. And he said, “ok tatangapin ko” but at the back of
his mind “By hook or by crook magiging akin ka din” So one evening, one
month after that incident where his offer of love was not accepted. Learning
that the girl he was courting was left alone in her house. He went to the
house. And then he found the house to be closed, he peek through the
window and sees the girl lying in the sofa
But the door is locked in the inside. To get inside of the house he climb the
window and surreptitiously approached the girl who lying in the sofa and
believing she was asleep he began removing her underwear and mounted
on her until he was able to penetrate her. But he was surprised because
the body of girl is already cold only to discover that the girl had already died
20 minutes ago because of cardiac arrest.

1. What was there an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME committed?

2. There is no more impossible crime there because there was a last

element in impossible crime “Provided that the act should not constitute
violation of any other provision of the revised penal code

When he entered the house, he already violated Article 280 which is a case
of TRESPASS TO DWELLING, it already constitute a crime based on other
provision of the law.
So the crime to be charged is only TRESSPASS TO DWELLING. Had the
door been open then it was through the door that he entered and he
penetrated the girl and discovered that she was already dead then that
would be considered as an impossible crime. Because rape now is a crime
against person
TRIVIA: Prior to the enactment of R.A 8353, there is no impossible crime of
rape, because rape is still a crime against chastity and not a crime against
person. It is only when a new provision of the RPC was inserted in Title 8,
that is ARTICLE 266-A. It transforms the crime of rape to crime against
chastity to crime against person.

[1] G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 SULPICIO

INTOD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.