Intod v CA, October 21, 1992

G.R. No. 103119

Topic: Impossible Crimes

Facts:
Petitioner, Sulpicio Intod, filed a petition for review of the decision of the CA affirming in toto the judgement of
RTC finding him guilty of the crime of attempted murder.
Intod wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them. With the company of four (4) men,
petitioner fired the room of Palangpangan in his house. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another
City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused
fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
Intod and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. One witness testified that before the five men left
the premises, they shouted: “We will kill you (the witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we will
come back if you were not injured.

Issue:
WON Intod be held liable only for an impossible crime instead of attempted murder.

Ruling:
Yes, the Intod is liable for an impossible crime.
Uunder Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code it provides that:
ART.4(2). CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.–—Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred:
xxx xxx xxx
2. By any person performing 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.
To be impossible, the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment, there must either be a legal
or physical impossibility. In the case at bar, it presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible to accomplish because Palangpangan was not in the said place, and thus petitioner failed to accomplish
his end.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court
of Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED. WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty
of an impossible crime as defined and penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code,
respectively. Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by Petitioner, this Court sentences
him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together with the accessory penalties provided by the
law, and to pay the costs.