Intod and company were hired to kill Palang-pangan due to a land dispute, but they fired shots at her room when she was actually in another city. The court ruled that Intod could not be charged with attempted murder because the crime was impossible to commit, as the intended victim was not present. The Philippines' penal code punishes impossible crimes that were intended to harm another but could not be completed due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control, like the victim's absence. As the victim's absence made the intended crime impossible, Intod's act qualified as an impossible crime under Philippine law.
Intod and company were hired to kill Palang-pangan due to a land dispute, but they fired shots at her room when she was actually in another city. The court ruled that Intod could not be charged with attempted murder because the crime was impossible to commit, as the intended victim was not present. The Philippines' penal code punishes impossible crimes that were intended to harm another but could not be completed due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control, like the victim's absence. As the victim's absence made the intended crime impossible, Intod's act qualified as an impossible crime under Philippine law.
Intod and company were hired to kill Palang-pangan due to a land dispute, but they fired shots at her room when she was actually in another city. The court ruled that Intod could not be charged with attempted murder because the crime was impossible to commit, as the intended victim was not present. The Philippines' penal code punishes impossible crimes that were intended to harm another but could not be completed due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control, like the victim's absence. As the victim's absence made the intended crime impossible, Intod's act qualified as an impossible crime under Philippine law.
Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one.
Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder?
Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crimean act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, 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 no 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.
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended crime. Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.