G.R. No.

103119 October 21, 1992

SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner,

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

FACTS:

Morning of February , 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino
Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and
asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and
Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya
that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that
Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.

At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Mandaya and the 4 men, all armed, arrived at
Palangpangan’s housee in Katugasan. Mandaya pointed Palangpangan’s bedroom and the 4 men
(including the petitioner) fired at said room. It turned out that Palangpangan was not there and it
was occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room, no one was hit.

The 4 men were identified by witnesses.

RTC convicted Intod of attempted murder with the affirmation of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the judgment
of the RTC Branch 14, Oroquieta City, finding him guilty of the crime of attempted murder.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. The decision is Modified. Petitioner is help guilty of an
impossible crime as defined by article 4 and 59 of the RPC.

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.
The crime was not impossible and the facts were sufficient to convict the petitioner for attempted
murder. Respondent alleged that there was intent. If it hadn’t been that Palangpangan was
sleeping at her house at that time, then the crime is not impossible. In order for the commission
of the offense to be impossible, the act must be by nature be impossible to accomplish.
Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:
(1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
(2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
(3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

Impossible crimes are recognized unlike the other states. The impossibility of accomplishing the
criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself. At this situation, it is a
physical impossibility. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is
sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

All the circumstances which prevented the act to be committed will be treated as an accident
independent of will – an element of attempted/frustrated felonies.