SULPICO INTOD VS CA

G.R. No. 103119

CAMPOS, JR. J.
Facts: In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and
Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandayas house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental, and asked him to come with them to Bernardina Palangpangans house. Thereafter
they had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan asking the four men to kill Palangpangan due to a
land dispute. The 4 wanted Mandaya to accompany them, otherwise he would also be killed.
On the same day about 10 PM, all 5 men went to Palangpangans house armed with firearms.
Mandaya pointed to Palangpangans bedroom and the other men fired at the said room.
However Palangpangan was in another city and no one was harmed by the gun fire. The
petitioner seeks a modification of the charge attempted murder citing Art. 4 paragraph 2 of the
RPC, which talks about impossible crimes.
Intod and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. One witness testified that
before the five men left the premises, they shouted: we will kill you and especially Bernardina
Palangpangan and we will come back if you were not injured

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of attempted murder
WON said act constitutes an impossible crime

Held:
No, although the petitioner had the intent to kill Palangpangan, the mere fact that
Palangpangan was in another city made it clear that there was phyisical impossibility to
accomplish the crime. This alone is sufficient under Art. 4 paragraph 2 of the RPC.
Yes. The factual situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility which
rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Art 4 par 2 of
the RPC, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. The case at bar belongs
to Factual impossibility category wherein extaneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

~The case cites cases from the U.S. where legal impossibility (You cant kill a deadman),
factual/physical impossibility (Man puts hand on anothers coat intending to steal a wallet, but
finds pocket empty), is used as a DEFENSE whether that person is guilty of attempting to the
crime. However in the Philippines, impossible crimes are RECOGNIZED and are penalized itself.
The RPC Art. 4(2) makes no distinction between factual and legal impossibility (Ubi lex non
distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos), such that both are sufficient to make the act an
impossible crime