Dear PAO,
I have read in a local tabloid that the Philippines punishes this so-called “impossible crime.” However, the article offered no explanation about it. Can you explain what an “impossible crime” is? Why would the law punish something that is “impossible” to accomplish?
Jiri
Dear Jiri,
The answer to your queries may be found in paragraph 2, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:
“Article 4(2). Criminal Responsibility – Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred: xxx
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 on account of the employment of inadequate or effectual means.”
In the landmark case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992, penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr., the Supreme Court thoroughly explained the above-quoted provision and elaborated how an impossible crime is committed, saying:
“Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons 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.
That the offense cannot be produced because the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment is the focus of this petition. 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.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus:
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.
The impossibility of killing a person already dead 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. 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. 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.”
In essence, impossible crime refers to an act which would ordinarily constitute a crime against persons or property, but is not accomplished due to the inherent impossibility of its completion or because the means employed are inadequate or ineffectual. The law still punishes such acts–not because physical harm was actually caused, but to suppress criminal intent and dangerous tendencies.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
