A, equipped with a knife, has been planning to kill B because of an earlier altercation that transpired between them. After hours of looking for B, A found B, who appears to be sleeping, under a coconut tree. Without saying any word, with much hatred and anger in his heart, A stabbed B with his knife multiple times. However, unknown to A, B was already dead having been bitten by a poisonous snake. Now, the question is, what crime did A commit in stabbing a lifeless B? This was one of the first questions that was thrown to me during my freshmen year in law school.
Our topic for this week’s column is the so called “impossible crime”.
What is an impossible crime? Impossible crime is an act which would have been an offense against person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
It is defined and penalized under paragraph 2, Article 4 in relation to Article 59, both of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: Article 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be incurred: xxx 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Article 59 of the RPC, on the other hand, states that: Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible – 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 intended act 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 xxx.
The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against person or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual; (4) the offender in performing such act is not violating another provision of the law. As can be gleaned from above, considering the act done did not amount to a crime because of its impossibility, the law punishes the perpetrator by reason of his criminal tendency or intent.
To be impossible under this provision of law, 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. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended act, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. The impossibility of killing a person already dead, as the example given above, falls in this category. 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.
In our jurisprudence, the most notable cases of impossible crime are that of Sulpicio Intod vs Court of Appeal (G.R. No. 103119) and that of Gemma T. Jacinto vs People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 162540).
In the Intod case, the accused Intod and four others, all armed with firearms, intending to kill a certain Palangpangan because of a land dispute, went to the house of the latter in Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. Upon arriving thereat, one of their companions pointed at the location of Palangpangan’s bedroom, and right away peppered such bedroom with bullets. However, it turned out that Palangpangan was not home and was in another city. No one was in the room when the shots were fired and no one was hit by the gun fire. One of the eyewitnesses testified that the accused and his companions were shouting “we will kill you” while firing in the bedroom. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of attempted murder and the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
However, when the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, the Court modified the Judgment and held the accused guilty of an impossible crime. In ruling so, the Supreme Court explained: 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. Xxx The factual situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility which rendered the intended impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.
In Jacinto case, accused Gemma was found guilty of qualified theft for stealing a check intended for her employer, Megafoam, thus, Accused filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The sole question therein is whether or not a worthless check may be the object of theft. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court ruled on the negative as there is factual impossibility to consummate the crime of theft.
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Accused performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property. Petitioner’s evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to the accused at that time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by accused turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored. Stealing an unfunded check is an impossible crime.