Case Digest (G.R. No. 103119)
Facts:
Sulpicio Intod, G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction for attempted murder.In February 1979, petitioner Intod and three companions — Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig — went with Salvador Mandaya to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan after Mandaya met Aniceto Dumalagan, who told Mandaya that Palangpangan should be killed over a land dispute and that Mandaya must accompany them or be killed. That evening the five men, all armed, arrived at Palangpangan’s house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. Mandaya pointed out the victim’s bedroom; Intod and his companions then fired shots at that room. Unknown to them, Palangpangan was not home; her son-in-law and family occupied the house and no one was in the bedroom. No one was struck by gunfire. Witnesses positively identified the attackers and one testified the group shouted threats that they would kill Bernardina and would return if she were not injured.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Oroquieta City, convicted Intod of attempted murder. The Court of Appeals (People v. Intod, C.A.-G.R. Cr. No. 09205, Aug. 14, 1991, Purisima, J., ponente) affirmed the conviction in toto. Petitioner then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court seeking modification of the judgment on the ground that the crime was inherently impossible under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code because the victim’s absence made the killing physically impossible. The People argued the case involved factual impossibility and therefore constituted an attempted ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the facts establish attempted murder, or do they instead constitute an impossible crime under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code?
- If the act is an impossible crime, what is the proper characterizat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)