Article 4:
settled rulings of the court, pertains to (1) legal
PEOPLE VS CALLAO
Main Topic: Impossible Crimes
Sub Topic/s: Conspiracy
QUESTION:
AAA and BBB met to discuss the plan to kill the
victim CCC. Right after they finished the plan,
they went to the house of CCC to execute it and
asked DDD to go with them. While tending to
her poultry farm, AAA went behind her and
sacked her with steel pipe in her nape. CCC,
weakened to fight back, fell on her knees while
AAA stabbed her on her left abdomen and
knocked her unconscious. BBB, upon seeing
that CCC is now motionless, stabbed her in her
chest thrice. DDD, threatened by AAA if he will
not join them, watched the whole incident from
afar and opted not to take part in the execution
of the killing. BBB was then apprehended while
AAA remained at large. BBB was charged with
murder but pleaded not guilty upon
arraignment. During trial, she contended that
she is only liable for the impossible crime of
murder because CCC is already dead when she
stabbed her. On the other hand, the
prosecution presented DDD as a lone witness
and categorically narrated the events that
transpired during the killing of CCC.
A. Decide with reasons.
ANSWER: No. (People vs Callao) Her contention
does not have any merit. She must be charged
with Murder with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery instead of impossible crime of murder.
According to jurisprudence, the requisites of an
impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed
would be an offense against persons or property;
(2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3)
that its accomplishment was inherently
impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual [(4) that the act
performed should not constitute a violation of
another provision of the Revised Penal Code].
Where the third element, as clearly defined by
impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act in order to
qualify the act as an impossible crime, the
impossibility of killing a person already dead falls
in the category of legal impossibility. BBB’s act of
stabbing CCC falls short of being an impossible
crime. First, even though she thought CCC was
already dead after she was hacked and stabbed
by AAA because the former was already lying on
the ground motionless, this statement cannot
sufficiently support the conclusion that, indeed,
CCC was already dead when BBB stabbed her.
Secondly, even assuming that it was AAA who
killed CCC and that the latter was already dead
when she was stabbed by BBB, BBB is still liable
for murder because of the clear presence of
conspiracy between BBB and AAA. As such,
AAA’s acts are likewise, legally, BBB’s acts.
On the issue of conspiracy, the
concerted acts of AAA and BBB constituted
conspiracy. According to jurisprudence,
conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
In this case, conspiracy is evident from the series
of acts of accused AAA and BBB, which, when
taken together, reveal a commonality and unity
of criminal design. With conspiracy attending,
collective liability attaches to the conspirators
AAA and BBB and the extent of their individual
participation in the Murder is immaterial. BBB’s
defense of impossible crime is thus completely
unavailing.
JACINTO VS PEOPLE
Main Topic: Impossible Crime
Sub Topic/s: Theft
AAA, handed BBB, an employee of Mega foam
Inc., a post-dated check worth P10,000 as
payment for AAA’s purchases from Mega Foam.
The said check was deposited to the account of
BBB’s account, instead to her company’s bank
account with the intent to fraudulently gain
from her employer. However, the bank called
Mega Foam that the deposited check was
dishonored and bounced. Thereafter, upon
knowing the fraudulent scheme of BBB, Mega
Foam filed a complaint against her and charged
her of Qualified Theft. Upon trial BBB
contended that a worthless check cannot be an
object of theft. Decide with reasons.
ANSWER: Yes, BBB’s contention is correct.
According to jurisprudence, theft is produced
when there is deprivation of personal property
due to its taking by one with intent to gain. For
impossible to be considered the following
requisites must concur: (1) that the act
performed would be an offense against persons
or property; (2) that the act was done with evil
intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was
inherently impossible, or the means employed
was either inadequate or ineffectual [(4) that
the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the Revised
Penal Code]. In this case, BBB performed all the
acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft,
which is a crime against property. BBB's evil
intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of
unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega
Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly
enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check
bounced, she would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully hers.
Therefore, it was only due to the circumstance of
the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to
petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime
from being produced. Hence, in view of the
foregoing, the crime must be that of impossible
crime of theft than qualified theft.
INTOD VS CA
Main Topic: Impossible Crime
Sub Topic/s: Legal Impossibility; Factual
Impossibility
AAA, BBB and CCC were tasked to kill DDD due
to land dispute. They peppered bullets at his
house with the intention of killing him.
However, he was in another city then thus they
hit no one. Considering the events that
transpired, what is the proper charge against
them? Decide with reasons.
ANSWER: The accused must be charged with
impossible crime. According to jurisprudence,
impossible crime is an act, were it not aimed at
something quite impossible or carried out with
means which prove inadequate, would
constitute a felony against person or property.
Its purpose is to punish criminal intent. There
must either be (1) legal impossibility, or (2)
physical impossibility of accomplishing the
intended act in order to qualify the act as an
impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs
where the intended acts even if completed,
would not amount to a crime. 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.
On the other hand, factual impossibility
occurs when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended
crime. The case at bar belongs to this category.
Petitioner shoots 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. Hence, it
is deducible that the acts of the accused
constituted impossible crime of murder.