IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Impossible crime

What is impossible crime? Is it punishable? How is it committed?

One of the unique features of our Revised Penal Code is its provisions on impossible crime. One who is not knowledgeable of the law may wonder how impossible crime is committed; or why punish an act that is impossible from happening.

Let us examine the features of an impossible crime. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, one way by which criminal liability is incurred is by committing an impossible crime. The article provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person performing an act which would be a crime against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce a crime against person 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. In other words, there is no resulting crime from the act of the offender and yet, in the eyes of the law, he is criminally liable. Objectively, there is no crime committed but, subjectively, the offender is a criminal. What is being punished here is the criminal tendency of the offender.

The essential requisites are: That the act performed would be a crime against persons or property (Titles 8 and 10 of Book 2); That the act was done with evil intent; and That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.

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. 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. In the leading case of Intod, the Court held that shooting the place where the accused thought his victim would be, although in reality, the latter was not present in said place is an example of factual impossibility.

Impossible crime is a crime of last resort. If the acts constitute another distinct felony, an impossible crime is not committed because objectively a crime is committed. In other words, if the crime is not produced although there is adequate or effectual means employed, it cannot be impossible crime but a frustrated felony. Thus, if the offender administered adequate quantity of poison in order to kill the victim but the latter survived because he was immediately brought to a hospital, the offender is guilty of frustrated murder and not of impossible crime.

In American jurisprudence, impossible crime is punished as attempted crime. There is a difference between the Philippine and the American laws regarding the concept and appreciation of impossible crimes. In the United States, where the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible of accomplishment, the offender cannot escape criminal liability. He can be convicted of an attempt to commit the substantive crime where the elements of attempt are satisfied.

Under Article 59 of the RPC, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.

Reference: Criminal Law Concepts and Jurisprudence, Nojara, 2020 edition, Central Book Supply. Cases: Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992. Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009.

P8-S20