G.R. No.

103119 October 21, 1992

SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS: Sulpicio Intod and 3 other men went to Salvador Mandayas house to ask him to come with them to the
house of Bernardina Palangpangan. The group of Sulpicio had a meeting with Manday and told Mandaya
that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them. Mandaya was required
to accompany the 4 men otherwise he would also be killed. At that same day, Intod and companions, all
armed with firearms arrived at Bernardina Palangpangans house. The petitioner fired at the said room. It
turned out the Palangpangan was in another city and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his
family. No one was in the room when the accused fired. No one was hit by the gunfire.
Petitioner and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. The Regional Trial Court convicted
Intod of attempted murder. Petitioner Intod seeks a modification of the judgment on the ground that he is
only liable for an impossible crime. Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the
night he and his companions fired their guns made the crime inherently impossible.
The prosecutor though argues that the crime was not impossible instead the facts were sufficient to
constitute an attempt and to convict Intod for attempted murder. Respondent likewise alleged that there was
intent.The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment, but due to a cause of accident other that petitioners and his co-accuseds own
spontaneous desistance. Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time. Had it not been for this fact,
the crime would have been possible.
ISSUE: Is petitioner is liable only for an impossible crime?
HELD:

Under Article 4 of the Revise Penal Code, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against person or property because:
1) The commission of the offense is inherently impossible to be accomplishment
2) The means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
To be impossible under this clause, there must be either legal impossibility or physical impossibility of
accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs
where the intended act, even if complete 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 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.
The petition is granted, therefore the decision of respondent Court of Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of
Attempted Murder is hereby modified. The Supreme Court sentenced the petitioner 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.