52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 1992.

SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT

OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

Criminal Law; Impossible crime; To be impossible, the act

intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment.That the offense cannot be produced because
the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment is the focus of this petition. To be impossible
under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its
nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either
(1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an
impossible crime.
Same; Same; Same; Legal impossibility occurs where the
intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: 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

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

53

VOL. 215, OCTOBER 21, 1992 53

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

amount to a crime.
Same; Same; Same; Factual impossibility occurs when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation of the intended 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. One example is the man
who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention
to steal the latters wallet and finds the pocket empty.
Same; Same; There is a difference between the Philippine and
the American laws regarding the concept and appreciation of
impossible crimes.The aforecited cases are the same cases
which have been relied upon by Respondent to make this Court
sustain the judgment of attempted murder against Petitioner.
However, we cannot rely upon these decisions to resolve the issue
at hand. There is a difference between the Philippine and the
American laws regarding the concept and appreciation of
impossible crimes.
Same; Same; Same; In the Philippines, the Revised Penal
Code, in Article 4(2) expressly provided for impossible crimes and
made them punishable.In the Philippines, the Revised Penal
Code, in Article 4(2), expressly provided for impossible crimes and
made them punishable. Whereas, in the United States, the Code
of Crimes and Criminal Procedure is silent regarding this matter.
What it provided for were attempts of the crimes enumerated in
the said Code. Furthermore, in said jurisdiction, the impossibility
of committing the offense is merely a defense to an attempt
charge. In this regard, commentators and the cases generally
divide the impossibility defense into two categories: legal versus
factual impossibility.
Same; Same; Same; In American law, there is no such thing
as an impossible crime.To restate, in the United States, where
the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible of
accomplishment, the offender cannot escape criminal liability. He
can be convicted of an attempt to commit the substantive crime
where the elements of attempt are satisfied. It appears, therefore,
that the act is penalized, not as an impossible crime, but as an
attempt to commit a crime. On the other hand, where the offense
is legally impossible of accomplishment, the actor cannot be held
liable for any crimeneither for an attempt nor for an
impossible crime. The only reason for this is that in American
law, there is no such thing as an impossible crime. Instead, it only
recognizes impossibility as a defense to a crime chargethat is,

54
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

attempt.
Same; Same; Same; In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are
recognized.This is not true in the Philippines. In our
jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of
accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an
act penalized by itself. Furthermore, the phrase inherent
impossibility that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal
Code makes no distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility. Ubi lex non distinguit nec
nos distinguiere debemos.
Same; Same; Same; Factual impossibility of the commission
of the crime is not a defense.x x x Factual impossibility of the
commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have
been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant
believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality the crime was
impossible of commission.
Same; Same; Same; Legal impossibility is a defense which can
be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt.Legal
impossibility, on the other hand, is a defense which can be
invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt.
Same; Same; The factual situation in the case at bar presents
a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible of accomplishment.The factual situation in the case
at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the
intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article
4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to
make the act an impossible crime.

PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of

Appeals. Purisima, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Public Attorneys Office for petitioner.

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

Petitioner, Sulpicio Intod, filed this 1petition for review of

the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the
judgment

_______________

1 People vs. Intod, C.A.-G.R. Cr. No. 09205, August 14, 1991.
 55

VOL.215,OCTOBER21,1992 55
Intod vs. Court of Appeals

of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Oroquieta City,

finding him guilty of the crime of attempted murder.
From the records, we gathered the following facts.
In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod,
Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went
to Salvador Mandayas 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 oclock in the evening of the same day,
Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all
armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangans house in
Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. At the
instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location
of Palangpangans bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner,
Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned
out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and
her home was then occupied by her sonin-law and his
family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the
shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
Petitioner and his companions were positively identified
by witnesses. One witness testified that before the five men
left the premises, they shouted: We will kill you (the
witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan2
and we
will come back if (sic) you were not injured.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of
attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto
the trial courts decision. Hence, this petition.
This petition questions the decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, holding
that Petitioner was guilty of attempted murder. Petitioner
seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by
holding him Justice Fidel P. Purisima, Ponente: Justices
Eduardo R. Bengzon and Salome A. Montoya, concurring.

_______________

2 TSN, p. 4, July 24, 1986.

 56

56 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Intod vs. Court of Appeals

liable only for an impossible crime, citing Article 4(2) of the

Revised Penal Code which provides:

ART.4(2).CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.Criminal
Responsibility shall be incurred:
x x xx x xx x x
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.

Petitioner contends that, Palangpangans absence from her

room on the night he and his companions riddled it with
bullets made the crime inherently impossible.
On the other hand, Respondent People of the Philippines
argues that the crime was not impossible. Instead, the facts
were sufficient to constitute an attempt and to convict
Intod for attempted murder. Respondent alleged that there
was intent. Further, in its Comment to the Petition,
respondent pointed out that:

x x x. The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of

the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment (Art. 4(2),
Revised Penal Code), but due to a cause or accident other than
petitioners and his co-accuseds own spontaneous desistance (Art.
3., ibid.) Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time.3
Had it not been for this fact, the crime is possible, not impossible.
4
Article 4, paragraph 2 is an innovation of the Revised
Penal Code. This seeks to remedy the void in the Old Penal
Code where:

x x x it was necessary that the execution of the act has been

commenced, that the person conceiving the idea should have set
about doing the deed, employing appropriate means in order that
his intent might become a reality, and finally, that the result or
end contem-

_______________

3Records, p. 65.
4Guevarra, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code 15 (4th ed., 1946).

57
 VOL. 215, OCTOBER 21, 1992 57
Intod vs. Court of Appeals

plated shall have been physically possible. So long as these

conditions were not present,
5
the law and the courts did not hold
him criminally liable.

This legal 6 doctrine left social interests entirely

unprotected. The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the
Positivist School,
7
recognizes in the offender his
formidability, and now penalizes an act which were it not
aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with
means which prove inadequate, would 8
constitute a felony
against person or against property. The rationale
9
of Article
4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies.
Under this article, the act performed by the offender
cannot produce an offense against persons or property
because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently
impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the10means employed is
either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual.
That the offense cannot be produced because the
commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment is the focus of this petition. To be
impossible under this clause, the act intended by the
offender must 11be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal
impossibility, or (2)
12
physical impossibility of accomplishing
the intended act in order to qualify the act as an
impossible crime.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended
13
acts, even
if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus:

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

______________

5Albert, The Revised Penal Code, Annotated 35 (1946).

6Albert,ibid.

7Albert,ibid.

8Albert,ibid.

9Gregorio and Feria, Comments on the Revised Penal Code 76 (Vol. I, 1st ed.
1958).
10Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 90 (Vol. I, 11th ed., 1977).
11Reyes,ibid.

12Reyes,ibid.

13 U.S. vs. Berrigan, 482 F. 2d. 171 (1973).

 58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the

consequence
14
resulting from the intended act does not amount to a
crime.
15
The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in
this category.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond
his control
16
prevent the consummation of the intended
crime. One example is the man who puts his hand in the
coat pocket of another with the intention 17
to steal the
latters wallet and finds the pocket empty.
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.
One American case has facts almost
18
exactly the same as
this one. In People vs. Lee Kong, the accused, with intent
to kill, aimed and fired at the spot where he thought the
police officer would be. It turned out, however, that the
latter was in a different place. The accused failed to hit him
and to achieve his intent. The Court convicted the accused
of an attempt to kill. It held that:

The fact that the officer was not at the spot where the attacking
party imagined where he was, and where the bullet pierced the
roof, renders it no less an attempt to kill. It is well settled
principle of criminal law in this country that where the criminal
result of an attempt is not accomplished simply because of an
obstruction in the way of the thing to be operated upon, and these
facts are unknown to the aggressor at the time, the criminal
attempt is committed.
19
In the case of Stokes vs. State, where the accused failed to
accomplish his intent to kill the victim because the latter
did

_______________

14 U.S. vs. Berrigan, ibid.

15Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 82 (Vol. I, 1987).
16 U.S. vs. Berrigan, supra, n. 13.
17 U.S. vs. Berrigan, ibid.
 1821 L.R.A. 626 (1898).
1921 L.R.A. N.S. 898 (1908).

59

VOL. 215, OCTOBER 21, 1992 59

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

not pass by the place where he was lying-in wait, the court
held him liable for attempted murder. The court explained
that:

It was no fault of Stokes that the crime was not committed. x x x

It only became impossible by reason of the extraneous
circumstance that Lane did not go that way; and further, that he
was arrested and prevented from committing the murder. This
rule of the law has application only where it is inherently
impossible to commit the crime. It has no application to a case
where it becomes impossible for the crime to be committed, either
by outside interference or because of miscalculation as to a
supposed opportunity to commit the crime which fails to
materialize; in short it has no application to the case when the
impossibility grows out of extraneous acts not within the control
of the party.
20
In the case of Clark vs. State, the court held defendant
liable for attempted robbery even if there was nothing to
rob. In disposing of the case, the court quoted Mr. Justice
Bishop, to wit:

It being an accepted truth that defendant deserves punishment by

reason of his criminal intent, no one can seriously doubt that the
protection of the public requires the punishment to be
administered, equally whether in the unseen depths of the pocket,
etc., what was supposed to exist was really present or not. The
community suffers from the mere alarm of crime. Again: Where
the thing intended (attempted) as a crime and what is done is a
sort to create alarm, in other words, excite apprehension that the
evil intention will be carried out, the incipient act which the law
of attempt takes cognizance of is in reason committed.
21
In State vs. Mitchell, defendant, with intent to kill, fired
at the window of victims room thinking that the latter was
inside. However, at that moment, the victim was in another
part of the house. The court convicted the accused of
attempted murder.
The aforecited cases are the same cases which have been
relied upon by Respondent to make this Court sustain the
judgment of attempted murder against Petitioner.
However, we

________________

2017 S.W. 145 (1888).

2171 S.W. 175 (1902).

60

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

cannot rely upon these decisions to resolve the issue at

hand. There is a difference between the Philippine and the
American laws regarding the concept and appreciation of
impossible crimes.
In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, in Article
4(2), expressly provided for impossible crimes and made
them punishable. Whereas, in the United States, the Code
of Crimes and Criminal Procedure is silent regarding this
matter. What it provided for were attempts of the crimes
enumerated in the said Code. Furthermore, in said
jurisdiction, the impossibility of committing the offense is
merely a defense to an attempt charge. In this regard,
commentators and the cases generally divide the
impossibility defense22 into two categories:
23
legal versus
factual impossibility. In U.S. vs. Wilson the Court held
that:

x x x factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a

defense. If the crime could have been committed had the
circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no
defense that in reality the crime was impossible of commission.

Legal impossibility, on the other hand, is a defense which

can be invoked to 24avoid criminal liability for an attempt. In
U.S. vs. Berrigan, the accused was indicted for attempting
to smuggle letters into and out of prison. The law governing
the matter made the act criminal if done without the
knowledge and consent of the warden. In this case, the
offender intended to send a letter without the latters
knowledge and consent and the act was performed.
However, unknown to him, the transmittal was achieved
with the wardens knowledge and consent. The lower court
held the accused liable for attempt but the appellate court
reversed. It held unacceptable the contention of the state
that elimination of impossibility as a defense to a charge
of criminal attempt, as suggested by the Model Penal Code
and the proposed federal legislation, is consistent with the

________________

22 U.S. vs. HENG AWKAK ROMAN, 39 L. Ed. 2d, 874 (1974).

23565 F. Supp. 1416 (1983).
24Supra, n. 13.

61

VOL. 215, OCTOBER 21, 1992 61

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

overwhelming modern view.. In disposing of this

contention, the Court held that the federal statutes did not
contain such provision, and thus, following the principle of
legality, no person could be criminally liable for an act
which was not made criminal by law. Further, it said:

Congress has not yet enacted a law that provides that intent plus
act plus conduct constitutes the offense of attempt irrespective of
legal impossibility until such time as such legislative changes in
the law take place, this court will not fashion a new non-statutory
law of criminal attempt.

To restate, in the United States, where the offense sought

to be committed is factually impossible of accomplishment,
the offender cannot escape criminal liability. He can be
convicted of an attempt to commit the substantive crime
where the elements of attempt are satisfied. It appears,
therefore, that the act is penalized, not as an impossible
crime, but as an attempt to commit a crime. On the other
hand, where the offense is legally impossible of
accomplishment, the actor cannot be held liable for any
crimeneither for an attempt nor for an impossible
crime. The only reason for this is that in American law,
there is no such thing as an impossible crime. Instead, it
only recognizes impossibility as a defense to a crime
chargethat is, attempt.
This is not true in the Philippines. In our jurisdiction,
impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of
accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense,
but an act penalized by itself. Furthermore, the phrase
inherent impossibility that is found in Article 4(2) of the
Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual
or physical impossibility and legal impossibility.Ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguiere debemos.
 The factual situation in the case at bar presents a
physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to
make the act an impossible crime.
To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense
was Attempted Murder because the absence of
Palangpangan was a

62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Intod vs. Court of Appeals

supervening cause independent of the actors will, will

render useless the provision in Article 4, which makes a
person criminally liable for an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment x x x. In that
case, all circumstances which prevented the consummation
of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of
the actors will which is an element of attempted and
frustrated felonies.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition
is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of
Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is
hereby MODIFIED. WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an
impossible crime as defined and penalized in Articles 4,
paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code,
respectively. Having in mind the social danger and degree
of criminality shown by Petitioner this Court sentences him
to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor,
together with the accessory penalties provided by the law,
and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), On official leave.

Petition granted; decision modified.

o0o

63
 Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.