Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
What is an impossible crime?
An impossible crime is one where the acts performed would have been a crime against person or property but which is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Requisites:
(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. (Gemma T. Jacinto vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009)
(4) That the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the RPC.
● 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.
1) Legal impossibility - occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. It 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. (Intod vs. CA)
(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. (Intod vs. CA)
Ex. (a) Killing a person already dead.
A dead person cannot be injured or killed again. (People vs. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)
A dead person cannot be injured or killed again. (People vs. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)
2) Factual impossibility - occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
Examples:
(a) A 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.
(b) X shoots the place where he thought his victim Z would be, although in reality, Z was not present in said place.
Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. (Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992)
(c) Accused was a collector for a company called Mega Foam Int’l Inc. and received a P10,000 check as payment from a Mega Foam customer. However, instead of turning over the check to Mega Foam, the accused took the check and had it deposited into her brother-in-law’s bank account. It turns out the the check was not funded.
In this case, petitioner 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 petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. (Jacinto vs. People)
(a) A 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.
(b) X shoots the place where he thought his victim Z would be, although in reality, Z was not present in said place.
Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. (Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992)
(c) Accused was a collector for a company called Mega Foam Int’l Inc. and received a P10,000 check as payment from a Mega Foam customer. However, instead of turning over the check to Mega Foam, the accused took the check and had it deposited into her brother-in-law’s bank account. It turns out the the check was not funded.
In this case, petitioner 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 petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. (Jacinto vs. People)
The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC
A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Because this person was exquisitely dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. When he reached a motel, A suddenly swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger, but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man, and so he pushed him out of the car, and gave him fist blows. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, is there any crime committed at all?
It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been a crime against chastity. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape, meaning to say, there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman.
The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony (Brabante)
Why is impossible crime punished?
● The rationale of Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies. (Intod vs. CA)
● The purpose of punishing impossible crime is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
What is the penalty for impossible crime?
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 200 to 500 pesos. (Art. 59, RPC)
0 Comments
Post a Comment