Case Summary (G.R. No. 163879)
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court found Intod guilty of attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto. Intod petitioned the Supreme Court for review, seeking reclassification of his liability from attempted murder to an impossible crime under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue
Whether the absence of the intended victim renders the act inherently impossible and thus reclassifiable as an “impossible crime” rather than an “attempted murder.”
Petitioner’s Argument
Intod argued that the victim’s absence made the killing inherently impossible. He invoked Article 4(2), which penalizes acts that would constitute a crime if not for their inherent impossibility or the use of inadequate means.
Respondent’s Argument
The People contended that the facts supported attempted murder: the criminal design was established, firearms were discharged at the intended victim’s presumed location, and failure to consummate the killing was due to circumstances beyond spontaneous desistance, not inherent impossibility.
Legal Framework
Under Article 4(2), criminal responsibility attaches where an act would be a felony but for: (a) inherent impossibility of accomplishment, or (b) employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Impossibility may be physical (factual) or legal. A factual impossibility—unknown extraneous circumstances—does not negate liability for an impossible crime in Philippine law.
Analysis of Impossible Crime versus Attempt
The Court distinguished Philippine law, which expressly punishes impossible crimes, from U.S. jurisprudence, where impossibility serves merely as an attempt defense. Here, the physical impossibility arose because Palangpangan was not present to be killed. Article 4(2) applies where the intended crime is inherently impossible by its nature or means. The absence of the victim constituted a factual impossibility, not a supervening cause independent of the actor’s will.
Comparative Jurisprudence
Philippine law
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 163879)
Facts
- On February 4, 1979, petitioner Sulpicio Intod, alongside Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio, Avelino Daligdig, and Salvador Mandaya, assembled at Mandaya’s home in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental.
- Aniceto Dumalagan instigated Mandaya and the four men to kill Bernardina Palangpangan over a land dispute, threatening Mandaya’s life if he refused.
- At about 10:00 PM the same day, the five men, all armed, arrived at Palangpangan’s house. Mandaya pointed out her bedroom.
- Intod, Pangasian, Tubio, and Daligdig fired multiple shots into the bedroom, not knowing Palangpangan was absent and in another city; no one was inside or wounded.
- Before leaving, the group shouted threats to the witnesses and to Palangpangan, vowing to return if she survived.
- Witnesses positively identified Intod and his companions as the shooters.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch XIV, convicted Intod of attempted murder.
- The Court of Appeals, in People v. Intod (C.A.-G.R. Cr. No. 09205, August 14, 1991), affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
- Intod filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, seeking modification of his conviction to an “impossible crime” under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue
- Whether the absence of the intended victim, making the killing physically impossible, converts the offense from attempted murder into an “impossible crime” under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code.