Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code: Criminal liability and impossible crimes
Status: In force
What does Article 4 say?
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
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.
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 4 says who incurs criminal liability. The first paragraph covers a person who commits a felony even if the harm done is different from what he intended. The second paragraph creates the "impossible crime": an act against persons or property done with evil intent, which could not succeed because the crime was impossible or the means used could not work. The act is punished even though no harm resulted.
The full text:
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
- By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
- 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.
A felony is an act or omission punishable by the Code, committed either with deliberate intent or through imprudence or negligence (Article 3).
How does it work in real life?
Rico: shots into an empty room
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.
Tess: an empty bag
Tess reaches into a stranger's bag on a jeepney to take a wallet, but the bag holds nothing of value. The theft fails only because of a fact she did not know. This is the kind of factual impossibility the Court described in Intod.
Jun: more harm than intended
Jun punches a man in a fight, meaning only to hurt him. The man falls, hits his head and dies. Under the first paragraph of Article 4, Jun can be liable for the result even though he did not intend it. The exact crime and penalty are for the court.
What does this mean in practice?
- Not a defense. An impossible crime is a crime. Claiming that the plan could not have worked does not lead to acquittal; at most it may change the crime from an attempt to an impossible crime.
- Facts must be proven. As Callao shows, the defense has to prove the fact that made the crime impossible.
- Stages of a crime. An impossible crime is different from an attempted or frustrated felony under Article 6, where the crime could have happened but did not.
- See also the case summary Intod v. Court of Appeals and the topic page on criminal liability basics.
- Getting help. A lawyer can assess how a charge is framed. See find legal help.
What does the first paragraph mean?
A person who sets out to commit a felony is liable for what actually happens, even if it is not what he planned. The words are "although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended". The starting point is that the person was already committing a felony. Which crime results, and whether any circumstance lowers the penalty, depends on the facts the court finds.
What is an impossible crime?
The second paragraph punishes an act that "would be an offense against persons or property" except that it could not be accomplished. In Jacinto v. People (2009), the Supreme Court listed the requisites:
- The act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
- The act was done with evil intent.
- Its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was inadequate or ineffectual.
Two points follow from the text. Only crimes against persons (such as killing or injuring) or against property (such as theft) can become impossible crimes. And the person must have acted with criminal intent: an innocent act that happens to be impossible is not covered.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Intod?
In Intod v. Court of Appeals (1992), a group went at night to a woman's house to kill her over a land dispute. Their companion pointed out her bedroom and they fired at it. She was in another city, and no one was in the room. No one was hit. The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the petitioner of attempted murder.
The Supreme Court changed the conviction to an impossible crime. It explained that impossibility can be legal (the act, even if completed, would not be a crime) or factual (circumstances unknown to the actor prevent the crime). It held that Article 4(2) makes no distinction between the two: the victim's absence was a physical impossibility, and that was enough. The Court said that in the Philippines "impossible crimes are recognized" and that the impossibility "is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself." It imposed six months of arresto mayor under Articles 4(2) and 59.
Has the Court applied it to theft?
Yes. In Jacinto v. People (2009), an employee took a customer's check that was meant for her employer. The check later bounced. The Court held that only the check being unfunded, a fact she did not know when she took it, kept the theft from happening. She was found guilty of an impossible crime and sentenced to six months of arresto mayor.
The Court does not accept the claim easily. In People v. Callao (2018), an accused argued that the victim was already dead when stabbed. The Court found that this fact was not proven, and that the accused was liable for murder in any case because of a conspiracy.
What is the penalty?
Article 4 defines the impossible crime. The penalty is in Article 59, which tells the court to weigh the social danger and the degree of criminality the offender showed. In both Intod and Jacinto, the Court imposed six months of arresto mayor. For how long each penalty lasts, see the table of the duration of penalties.
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
- Valenzuela v. People (G.R. No. 160188)Valenzuela v. People explained: theft is consummated once the thief takes possession, so there is no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code.
- Intod v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103119)Intod v. Court of Appeals explained: shots fired into an empty bedroom were an impossible crime, not attempted murder, and what penalty the Court set.
Frequently asked questions
What is an impossible crime in the Philippines?
Under Article 4, paragraph 2, it is an act that would be an offense against persons or property, done with evil intent, but which could not be accomplished because the crime was inherently impossible or the means used were inadequate or ineffectual. The act is punished by itself.
What are the requisites of an impossible crime?
In Jacinto v. People (2009), the Supreme Court listed three: 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 employed was inadequate or ineffectual.
Is shooting into an empty room attempted murder or an impossible crime?
In Intod v. Court of Appeals (1992), the accused fired into a bedroom to kill a woman who, unknown to them, was in another city. The Supreme Court held this was an impossible crime, not attempted murder, because the killing was physically impossible.
What is the penalty for an impossible crime?
Article 4 defines it and Article 59 sets the penalty. In Intod and in Jacinto, the Supreme Court imposed six months of arresto mayor.
Am I liable if the harm is worse than what I intended?
Article 4, paragraph 1, says criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony even if the wrongful act done is different from the one intended. Which crime and which penalty apply is decided by the court on the facts.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?