25 People V Balmores Digest
25 People V Balmores Digest
People v Balmores
Impossible Crimes Art. 4. Criminal liability. —
Date: 1950, Feb 16 Criminal liability shall be incurred:
Ponente: Ozaete, J
2. By any person performing an act
which would be an offense against
SUMMARY: 4. Appellant’s counsel contends that there was no persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its
Appellant was sentenced to an excessive penalty for such 1/8 unit ticket for the June 29, 1947, draw
accomplishment or an account of the
trying to falsify a sweepstakes ticket (in a ridiculous as only 1/4 unit tickets were issued.
employment of inadequate or
manner). Appellant’s counsel tries to argue that it was 5. Counsel contends that the information did not ineffectual means.
an impossible crime in order to lower the penalty. Court show that the original number of the ticket was
rules it was not an impossible crime. not 07400; if the original number 07400 then it Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case
could not have been falsification. of failure to commit the crime because
ISSUES: 6. Counsel also contends that trial court lacked the means employed or the aims
1. WON the facts charged in the information did jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty sought are impossible. —
not constitute an offense. because, being illiterate, he was not assisted by
2. WON the trial court lacked jurisdiction to counsel. When the person intending to
commit an offense has already
convict him on a plea of guilty because, being
performed the acts for the execution
illiterate, and not assisted by counsel. HOLDING:
of the same but nevertheless the
3. WON the crime committed an impossible crime crime was not produced by reason of
(with regards to Art 59 of the RPC). Yes. Court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that the fact that the act intended was by
only 1/4 unit tickets were issued. Courts cannot take its nature one of impossible
FACTS: judicial notice of what is not of common knowledge. If accomplishment or because the
1. Appellant tore off the bottom of a genuine 1/8 relevant, should have been proved. However, even if means employed by such person are
unit ticket of a Philippine Sweepstakes ticket this were true, it bolsters the theory that the ticket was essentially inadequate to produce
removing the number and substituting it by indeed spurious. the result desired by him, the court,
writing in ink 07400, a prize winning number for having in mind the social danger and
the degree of criminality shown by
the June 29, 1947 draw. With regards the number. If the original number was
the offender, shall impose upon him
2. Appellant presented ticket to claim the prize indeed 07400, there would have been no need for the penalty of arresto mayor or a
(P359.55). Employee receiving the ticket noticed appellant to alter the ticket in any way. fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
that it was falsified and called for a policeman
who arrested the appellant right then and there No. The appellant expressly waived the right to counsel
3. Appellant waived right to counsel and plead and no law prohibits such waiver. Appellant’s illiteracy
guilty to the information charged. Was convicted does not matter.
of the crime of Estafa through falsification of a
security. Sentenced to not less than 10 yrs and 1 No. While the appellant may have been reckless or
day of prision mayor and not more than 12 yrs foolish in believing such a blatant falsification could have
and 1 day of reclusion temporal, a fine of P100 succeeded, that did not make the crime impossible
and the costs. under Art. 2 of the RPC with regards to Art 59.
Examples of an impossible crime, punishable under **Note Related Provisions:
article 59 of the RPC, are the following: (1) When one
tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance Had it been successfully argued that it was an impossible Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection
which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is with acts which should be repressed
crime, penalty would be arresto mayor as per Art 59.
common salt; and (2) when one tries to murder a but which are not covered by the law,
corpse. and in cases of excessive penalties. —
“We realize that the penalty is too severe, considering In the same way, the court shall
all the circumstances of the case, but we have no submit to the Chief Executive,
discretion to impose a lower penalty than authorized by through the Department of Justice,
law. The exercise of clemency is vested by the such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the
Constitution in the Chief Executive and not in this court.”
execution of the sentence, when a
strict enforcement of the provisions
RULING: of this Code would result in the
We are constrained to affirm the sentence appealed imposition of a clearly excessive
from, with costs against the appellant. penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury
caused by the offense.