INTOD VS COURT OF APPEALS (GR No.

103119 | October 21, 1992)

Petitioner: Sulpicio Intod
Respondents: Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines  
Impossible Crime
SUMMARY: Sulpicio Intod was found guilty of attempted murder by the RTC and the
CA. He appealed to the SC, arguing that he was only guilty of an impossible crime
because unknown to the petitioner, the woman he attempted to kill by shooting at her
bedroom was not there at the time of the commission of the act. SC modified RTC and
CA decision, held that Intod was guilty of impossible crime, not attempted murder.
FACTS:
• Morning of February 4, 1979
o Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio, and Avelino Daligdig went
to the house of Salvador Mandaya and asked him to go with them to the
house of Bernardina Palangpangan.
o The five then men with Aniceto Dumlagan, who told Mandaya that he
wanted Palangpangan killed because of a land dispute between them.
o He threatened Mandaya that if did not join the four men in killing
Palangpangan, he will also be killed.
• 10:00 PM of February 4, 1979
o The five men (Mandaya, Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig) came to
Palangpangan’s house armed with firearms.
o Mandaya pointed out the bedroom of Palangpangan, then the four other
men fired at said room.
o Unknown to the assailants, Palangpangan was not in her house during
this time, instead, her son-in-law and his family were inside.
o It turns out that no one was inside the room when the four men were firing,
and nobody was hurt.
o Witnesses positively identified the five men, who threatened to come back
for Palangpangan.
• Petitioner was convicted by the RTC of attempted murder, a decision which was
affirmed by the CA.
• Petitioner seeks modification of his sentence, arguing that he should be
convicted of an impossible crime instead.
ISSUE/S:
• WoN Intod should be convicted for impossible crime instead of attempted murder
HELD:
• YES
 o Impossible crimes cannot produce an offense against persons or property
because: the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment, and the means involved is either inadequate or
ineffectual.
o For the commission of the offense to be considered impossible of
accomplishment, there must be either legal impossibility or physical
impossibility.
o The crime at hand falls under the second category, (aka factual
impossibility) when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
§ Petitioner shot at the place where he thought his victim would be,
although in reality, the victim was not present in said place, and
thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
o While in the US, factual impossibility is only a defense to a crime charge,
the RPC penalizes it as a crime in itself.
o Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguiere debemos: Art 4 of the RPC
does not make a distinction between factual/physical impossibility/legal
impossibility.
RULING:
• Petition is granted, the decision of the CA holding the petitioner guilty of
attempted murder is modified. Petitioner is guilty of impossible crime, sentenced
to 6 months of arresto mayor, and all accessory penalties, with costs.