View full case

SULPICIO INTOD v. CA

FACTS:

In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod and his companions went to Salvador Mandaya's house and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. They had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan, who wanted Palangpangan to be killed due to a land dispute. Later that evening, Intod and his companions, armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house and fired shots at her bedroom. However, Palangpangan was not in the room and no one was injured. Intod and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. They shouted threats before leaving the premises. The Regional Trial Court found Intod guilty of attempted murder, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Intod filed a petition seeking a modification of the judgment, arguing that the crime was inherently impossible. The People of the Philippines argued that there was intent to commit murder and that the crime was not impossible but not consummated due to external circumstances.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the crime committed by the petitioner is attempted murder or an impossible crime.

  2. Whether the absence of the intended victim at the time of the shooting makes the crime inherently impossible.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the crime committed by the petitioner is attempted murder, not an impossible crime. The absence of the intended victim at the time of the shooting does not make the crime inherently impossible. The Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals finding the petitioner guilty of attempted murder.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal responsibility may be incurred 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.

  • In order for a crime to be considered impossible, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature impossible of accomplishment. There must be either legal impossibility or physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act.

  • Legal impossibility occurs when the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.

  • Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

  • The absence of the intended victim at the time of the shooting does not render the crime inherently impossible.