52. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 236, OCTOBER 21, 1992 58. Tntod ve. Cour of Appeate Into os. Cour of Appeals ‘50 ORDERED. Faliano, Regelado, Nocon and Campos, J, cone. Accused appellant aquited Note—Documents signet by the sessed during cotati! Investigation are inthe same ontpory a exteauical confer: sion cutdawed by the Canttution Peoplewe Yutu, 188 SCRA D. RNa 105119, Oster 21, 1862" ‘SULPIOIO INTOD, potitioncr, ve, HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respon- ‘ents Crimint La imposible rime; To be impossiie, the on tended ty the efor mart be by i nature ane igs of ‘ecomplichment “That the sfnse cant! be produced trenee the ‘Smmunion he ffenetn inherent poabie accompihment [nthe fous ofthis etn Tobe impose under the iu, hen Intended by the efnder must be by ls oatare one posse of ‘scomplshent. Thre aust be ether () legal lnposebiy ‘yet possi of sccmplishing the Sntended et In eder fo ‘qualify the ac at an imperil rime, Sams; Same, Same: Lgelimpsvuiilityecurs wh th ine tended ets een i completa, ould nat omoutt fo ermeLag Irspoauteyocure where te itonded nem even Semple, woah ‘otamount tm crime Thus Lag imponlty would apply 0 those Greaosanoe where (D) the motive, derive 20d expectation fe (0 ‘rears an ac in ation fhe nw hard nention apron the phys! st there lea pertrmance the nae physc * SECOND piviston, ‘Same; Some; Sane; Fectual impossibility cere when exrane ‘us ciurnonceruninau othe ator or byond hs ean presené ‘he contummaton ofthe inte erie On te er ban, ct {pany eesure when extraenuscreamateson snow othe "scorer bejond hs ental prevent the oneunatie tho tended. ime: One example te tsan who pus hishandlchecost pocket ef “outer withthe intanton ty aa he Inter wales an finde tho pocket emp. Same Sama Thor iver betes the Philippine andthe Amarcan ous regarding the conn an apres of tose ‘ines "The seid tans are he sat tones which have been, "eed up by Respongnt mate thls Court sustain th agen of "templed murder agsina Petite However, we canal rly pon {hee deine fo recive the lace al hand There ia ditcence ‘etween ie Pippin andthe Amereanlnwsrpuring he concept ‘Same: Some: Sam nthe Pippi, theRaveed Pra! Cae, in Ate 2 ry pred fripeerimevand made tem, ‘htc Whereas tote United Stan, the Cole Crtnesand Crminl tempt the rms enumerated fn the als Code Further, ‘id jeritetin, tbe tpeanbiity ofcommiting he oan moral ‘ekfengeto an stiomps charge Te the ropard commenters he ‘sos goorally dvd the inponiitydfene Inte wo categories: leg verou acl inpoetaly, ‘Sens: Same; Same In Ameri nu rede nonuch hing saan ‘ponblecime To ent, inthe Utd Staten, whet he ese ‘Suto ke eomlted ie tulyipossibea! seomplsmen, te ‘ilnder cannot eocpe erinal lly, He ean beens ofan ‘Stamgt to comm the subeansve rime whore the eames {espe sattidIappecn hor ht hafman ‘heastr camo! be hd lable or anyonmo-aeihe or an atompt ‘or fo an possibe crime. Tho oly reason fr thei that in ‘Arserca nw her eo sch hing a a impose vine. Tend, ely recone pont an etna toc charset,54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL, 215, OCTOBER 21, 1992 55 Tnted on, Court of Appel Tro vx Court of Appeate ‘woah ‘Some; Sere; Som In cur arto, Impose cries are ‘eoginnd—Tia notte inthe Pulp Tn or raion, Inponbl crimes are cogized. The impeetity of acermplsting tho eriinal intent sot merely a defense, Bot who penalized by [ul Furtharmor the phrase Sohorent posite found {Arle s)he Reveé Penal Cage maken no dancin tween ‘actual pha powely ad legal npoolity tix non Aisin nec en singer debe ‘aan: Same; Some; Factual possi ofthe commission of ‘here a defense xx Focal nosey of he etme ‘that the rina now dete tthe erie spall have bean omitted ha the steumstaner bean atthe defendant bebe ‘hom tn be, ism afenge hat neal the erie wes Impala Same See Same egel inp ioefense which on be invoked fo evid criminal lilt forex ate. —Laga import Sijen the other band, ie «donee which eat be Ineokod fo std ‘innit or a atempe Sane; Sane, The facta tution in he can ot Bor presets @ phys! import hich endered he ter oime poe of esomplichment.Th fst! stunton fo theca at Bar presenta ‘hye ingen whieh tendered the Intended vie impale [Staccmpishment And under Arle 4, prngrph 20 the Revied ‘onal Cata rhino ak heat ah post eine PETITION ‘or review ofthe decision ofthe Court of Appeals, Parise, “The facts are stated inthe opinion af the Court. Public Atoney' Ofte er petitioner. CAMPOS, IR, J Petitioner, SulpiloTntod, ed this petition for review of the Aecsion of the Court of Appeal alirmingin foto the judgment "People va Inked, CA-GR, Cr. No, 09906, Aug 14,19, ‘ofthe Regional Tval Court, Branch XIV, Orogueta City, finds lng him guilty of the crime of attomptod murda. From the records, we gathered the illowing fc In the morning of February 4, 1978, Salpco lntod, Jorge Pangasian, Santas Tubio and Avelio Dalit went to Salva- dor Mandayas houso in Katugasan, Lopor Jeena, Misamis ‘Ocsdental and asked him to go with thom 19 the house of ‘Bornerdina Pelangpangar. Thereater, Mandaya and Into, Pengasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumlagan. Ho told Mandaya thet he wantod Palungpaagen to belilled because of land dispute between them: and that Ban- aya shoal accompany the four () man, otherwise, he would ioe kilo “At sbout 10:00 stock inthe evening ofthe same das, Pei toner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio snd Dalia all armed ‘with firearms, arrived at Pelangpangan’s house is Katugosan, {apex Jeane, Mizamis Occidental. At the instance of his oom: ‘ions Mardaya pointed the lation of Palangpangana bed ‘wom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligig fired at sid room, It tured out, wove, that Palangpangan ‘was in another Cty and bar home was then cecupied By har Sonn Jaw and his family. No one was in the room when the ‘cruised fred the shot, Noone was ity the gun ire Petitioner and hie companions were positively identified by witnestes. One witness testified tht before the five men lee ‘he promises, they shoate: "We wil il ou the witmess) aad specially Bernardina Palangpengan end we wil eome back if (sie) you wee not injured ‘After rial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Into of at- tempted murder. The Cour of Appeals afirmedin ot the tal ‘cours decison. Hence, this potiton ‘This petition question the decision of the Regional Tvial ‘Court (TC), ab emo by the Cour of Appeals holding that Petitimer was guilty of atornpted murder. Potitionsr soaks ‘rom thi Court a modification ofthe jgrent by held him Susie Fil. Puisina, Povete: Jstlos Eduardo R Bangon and Salome A, Borys concurring SSN; 4 daly 24, 198656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 215, OCTOBER 2, 1992 o1 “nto vm. Court of Appeals Table only for an impossible crime, ating Article 4@) of the Revised Penal Cade which provides: “aw, 42) CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY-Criminal Resone sig sal incur 2 By any pron performing a at which wald be an fense sn persona crepe serene arte ret impos of se antptinment cron ecsant of themploment of adequate or Ineo mene Petitioner contends that, Palongpangan’s abence from her oom on Uhe night he and his companions riled it with bullets ade tho erie inberently imposible ‘On the ether hand, Respondent People f the Philipines ar- rue that the crime was not impossible. Inston, the facts were Fericint to contiute an attempt and to convict tod for ‘Tempted murder. Respondent alleged that there was intant. ‘Further, inte Conmont tothe Petition, spandent pointed out ‘hat 22 The crime of murder wasnt consummated it ene ot the inherent polity of accomplishment (Ar. 4), Revnod $a) Gado tut ue to acne craosdent other thay peioner and BIR SShnode own epntancou destnce Art. 3, 10) Falangpan- {Dr ilu lp at Bor hoe at that tino, Had Uno been ths Foc the vine tps, no impossible? Astite 4, paragraph 2s an innovation‘ ofthe Reviod Penal Code, This sooks to remedy the voi in the Old Penal Code where: sexe wae oaatary that he exeatn ofthe at has ee ‘lst, that the poroneoneseing th en bald have got bot “Tine thedeed cupnine appropiate meas incre ha intent SIGE Ste realy ni Boy tht te el or end conte * necords 9 65 «Guerin, Commentaries ot, 1940. 5m the Revseé Pena Cao 18 (4h Tniod vs. Court of Appeals ‘lated shall ve Ben physleally posse, Seng as these condone irr nt prem lnw nd ne cnt il ot el i eral ‘This og dectrine eft ssi intrest entirely unprotcted* ‘The Revised Penal Cade, inspired by the Pesitivst Schl, recogines inthe offender his formidablity and now penalnet ‘nnact which were it notaimed at something quite imposible or fared aut with meana which prove inadequate, would consti {ute felony aginst person or aginst property The rationale ff Article 42) eto punish ach eminal tendencies? Under this article, ch act performed by the offender cannot produce a alfene agaist persons or property because) the ‘Soumiscion of che offense is inberenty impossible of acom- plishment;er the means emplyediselther a) inadequate or ( inatinctoa ‘That the oleae cannot be produced because the commision of the oflens is inherently impossible of accomplishments the fous ofthingetition, Tobe impousble under this clause, the act Jntended bythe offender must be by its nature onolinpssible et accomplishment." There must be ether () Iga impossibility, (2) pyseal impossibility of accomplishing the intended act Inarder ta qualify the act as an impeeeible crime gal impossibility seus where te intended set, oven completed, would not amount to aerime. Thus: ‘Loge inossity would appy to tone crumitanse mhere ) the oto, eran xpecation sta prtrm a ota ation ‘hola; here einen porto the plea oct 3) ere «Alber The Revised Penal Cad, Annotated 35194 Aber id Abort id her * Grgirlo and Pers, Comments on the Ravin Penal Code 26 ol ated 1959, yes, The Revied Penal Cae, 90 (Vol. Lthed, 197), 2 Rogen it ae aa 8 UB. re Bergan, 482, 28,271 978,