From Legal Wiki

Criminal liability shall be incurred, inter alia, 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.^[1] When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from PhP200 to PhP500.^[2]

Contents 1 Rationale for penalizing impossible crimes 2 Requisites of impossible crimes 3 Classifications of impossible crimes 3.1 Legal impossibility 3.2 Factual impossibility 3.3 Difference with rules in the United States 4 Application of penalties 5 References

Rationale for penalizing impossible crimes

The provision on impossible crimes seeks to remedy the void in the Old Penal Code where 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 contemplated shall have been physically possible. So long as these conditions were not present, the law and the courts did not hold him criminally liable.^[3]

This legal doctrine left social interests entirely unprotected. The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, 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 constitute a felony against person or against property. The rationale of Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies.^[4]

Requisites of impossible crimes

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.^[5]

Classifications of impossible crimes

Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against person or property because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment: or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual.^[6]

Legal impossibility

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 impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act an impossible crime.^[7] 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.^[8] The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category.^[9]

Factual impossibility

Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. 16 One example is the man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.^[10] In Intod vs. Court of Appeals,^[11] the accused, intending to kill a person, peppered the latter’s bedroom with bullets, but since the intended victim was not home at the time, no harm came to him. The accused was adjudged guilty of an impossible crime because of the factual impossibility of producing the crime.^[12]

Difference with rules in the United States

In one American case with similar facts to Intod, 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 accused was convicted of an attempt to kill.^[13] However, there is a difference between the Philippine and the American laws regarding the concept and appreciation of impossible crimes.^[14]

In the Philippines, unlike in the United States, the Revised Penal Code expressly provides for impossible crimes and made them punishable. Also, in the United States, the impossibility of committing the offense is merely a defense to an attempt charge. The impossibility defense in the United State is generally divided into two categories: legal versus factual impossibility. Factual impossibility is not a defense, and 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 crime — neither for an attempt nor for an impossible crime. There is no crime when the law does not treat it as such.^[15]

In the Philippine 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.^[16]

Application of penalties

The court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from PhP200 to PhP500.^[17] In Intod vs. Court of Appeals,^[18] the court convicted the accused of committing an impossible crime, as defined and penalized in Article 4 (2), in relation to Article 59, of the Revised Penal Code. Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by the accused, the court sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor. In Jacinto vs. People, the accused was convicted for committing an impossible crime, in relation to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arrresto mayor.^[19]

References

1. ↑ Revised Penal Code, Art. 4(2)
2. ↑ Revised Penal Code, Art. 59
3. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
4. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
5. ↑ Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009
6. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
7. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
8. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
9. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
10. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
11. ↑ G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
12. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992, cited in Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009
13. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
14. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
15. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
16. ↑ Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
17. ↑ Revised Penal Code, Art. 59
18. ↑ G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992
19. ↑ Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009