Intod v. Court of Appeals (1992): An Impossible Crime

One morning in February 1979, the petitioner and his companions met a man who wanted a woman killed because of a land dispute between them. At about 10:00 in the evening of the same day, the armed group went to the woman's house in Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. A companion pointed out her bedroom, and the petitioner and others fired at the room.

The woman was in another city. Her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the shots were fired, and no one was hit.

The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City convicted the petitioner of attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed in full. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Was the petitioner guilty of attempted murder, or of an impossible crime under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code?

The Supreme Court granted the petition and modified the conviction to an impossible crime.

What an impossible crime is. Under Article 4, paragraph 2, a person incurs criminal liability by doing an act that would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or the use of inadequate or ineffectual means. The Court said the act "cannot produce an offense against persons or property" because the offense is inherently impossible to accomplish, or because the means used is inadequate or ineffectual.

Two kinds of impossibility. The Court described:

• Legal impossibility, which "occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime." Its example: killing a person who is already dead.
• Physical or factual impossibility, which "occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime." Its example: a man who reaches into another's coat pocket to steal a wallet and finds the pocket empty.

Philippine law punishes both. The Court noted that impossible crimes are recognized in the Philippines: "The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself." The phrase "inherent impossibility" in Article 4(2) makes no distinction between factual and legal impossibility.

The empty room. The Court held that the facts showed a physical impossibility that made the intended killing impossible to accomplish, and that this is enough for an impossible crime under Article 4(2). It rejected treating the victim's absence as an accident that merely stopped an attempted murder, because that reading would make the provision on impossible crimes useless.

The penalty. The Court held the petitioner guilty of an impossible crime as defined in Article 4, paragraph 2, and penalized in Article 59. Considering the social danger and degree of criminality he showed, it sentenced him to six months of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and costs.

An act meant to kill that cannot succeed because of a circumstance unknown to the offender or beyond his control, such as the intended victim's absence, is an impossible crime under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code, not an attempted crime; Article 4(2) covers both factual and legal impossibility.

Intod is the case the Court relied on in later rulings on the impossible crime. It shows the line between an attempt, where the crime could have happened but was stopped, and an impossible crime, where it could never have happened. For the stages of a crime that is possible, see attempted vs frustrated vs consummated.

In later cases, such as Jacinto v. People (2009), the Court listed three requisites of an impossible crime: the act would be an offense against persons or property; it was done with evil intent; and its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means used was inadequate or ineffectual. In Jacinto, it applied the impossible crime to a theft that failed only because a stolen check bounced.

Made-up illustration: Rico fires several shots into his neighbor's bedroom to kill her. He does not know she left the day before, and the room is empty. Following Intod, this can be an impossible crime, not attempted murder.

See also the topic page on criminal liability basics.

Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a criminal case, see where to find legal help.