The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendenc y on the part of the actor. Such person is
a potential According to thinking, the community
m u s t be protected from anti-social acti vi ti es, w h e t h e r actual or potential, of th e morbid type of m a n called "socially dangerous
person."
The penalty for impossible crime is provided in Article 59 of this Code.
The 2nd paragraph of Art. 4 defines the so-called impossible crimes (impossible attempts).
Requisites of impossible crime:
That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
2. That the act w a s done w i t h evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherentl y impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of th e Revised Penal Code.
I M P O R T A N T W O R D S A N D P H R A S E S I N P A R A G R A P H 2 O F A R T . 4.
1. an act which would be an offense against persons or property."
I n c o m m i t t i n g a n i m p o s s i b l e crime , t h e offender intends to commi t a felony agai n s t persons or a felony agai ns t property, and the act performed would have been an offense agains t persons or property. But a felony against persons or property should not be actually committed, for, otherwise, he would be liable for t h at felony. There would be no impossibl e crime to speak of.
F e l o n i e s a g a i n s t p e r s o n s a r e : a. Parricide (Art. 246) b. Murder (Art. 248)
Homicide (Art. 249) d. Infanticide (Art. 255)
e. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257 , 25 8 and 259) f. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
g. Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264 , 265 and 266) h. Rape (Art. 266-A)
F e l o n i e s a g a i n s t p r o p e r t y a r e :
a. Robbery (Arts. 294 , 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and 303) b. Bri gandage (Arts. 3 06 and 307)
Theft 311)
d. U s u r p at i on (Arts. 3 1 2 and 313) e. Culpable insolvenc y (Art. 314)
S wi n d l i n g and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and 318)
g. Chatte l mortgage (Art. 319)
h. Arson and other crimes involvin g destruction (Arts.
320, 3 2 1 , 3 2 2 , 3 2 3, 3 2 4, 325 and 326)
i . M al i c i ou s m i s c h i e f (Arts . 3 2 7 , 3 2 8 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 and 331)
If t h e act performed would be an offense other t h an a felony agai nst person s or agai ns t property, there is no impossible crime.
That the act was done with evil intent.
Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense agai ns t persons or agai ns t property, it m u s t be shown that the actor performed the act w i th evil intent, that is, he m u s t have the i ntent to do an injury to another.
A, who wante d to kill B, looked for him. Whe n A saw B, he found out tha t B w a s already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in his breast thre e t i m e s wi th a knife. Is thi s an impossible crime?
No, becaus e A kne w t h a t B w a s already dead wh e n he stabbed the lifeless body. There w a s no evil i ntent on the part of A, because he kne w that he could not cause an injury to B. Even subjectively, he w a s not a criminal.
2. it not for the inherent impossibility its accomplish-ment or on account of the employaccomplish-ment of inadequate or ineffectual means."
In impossible crime, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense agains t persons or property,
because: the commission of the offense (against persons or against property) is inherently impossible of accomplish-ment; or (2) the m e an s employed is either (a) inadequate;
or (b) ineffectual.
a. "Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment."
This phrase m e a n s that the act intende d by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplish-ment. (See Art. 59, Revised Penal Code)
There m ust be either (1) legal or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended
act.
E x a m p l e s o f i m p o s s i b l e c r i m e s w h i c h a r e punishable under the Revised Penal Code are: (1) When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believe s to be arsenic wh e n in fact it is common salt; and (2) w h e n one tries to murder a corpse. (People vs. 85 Phil. 493, 496) (1) "Would be an offense against persons."
Example: A fired at B, w a s lying on bed, not knowing t h at B w a s dead hours before.
In crime agai nst persons , as would have bee n in this case, it is necessar y tha t the victi m could be injured or killed. A dead person cannot be injured or killed. Had B been alive w h e n he w a s shot, and as a consequenc e he died, the crime c o m m i t t e d by A woul d h a ve be e n murder, a crime agai n s t persons.
There is physical and legal impossibility in thi s example .
(2) "Would be an offense against property."
A, wi th i nte nt to gain, took a watc h from the pocket of B. W he n A had the watch in his possession, he found out that it w a s the watch which he had lost a week before. In other words, the watch belonged to A. Is this an impossible crime?
It is believed t h at it m a y be an impossible crime. Th e act performed would hav e bee n theft had th e watc h be e n th e property of B. But there is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it, be-cause in theft, the personal property take n m u s t belong to another.
An empl oyee who, havi n g k n own the safe combination, opens the safe in the office for the purpose of s te al i n g money, but who finds the safe empty, is guilty of an impossible crime. The act performed would hav e be e n a crime of theft wer e it not for t h e i nhe r e nt impossibility of its accomplishment. If there is no personal property t h a t could be tak e n , it is inherently impossible to commi t theft.
b. "Employment of means.
Example: A, d e t e r m i n e d to poison B, u s e s a small quanti ty of arsenic by mixin g it wi th the food give n to B, believin g t h at the quantity employed by h i m is sufficient. Bu t sinc e in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed. The m e a n s employed (small quantity of poison) is i nade quate to kill a person.
Where the means employed is adequate.
B u t w h e r e th e m e a n s e m pl oye d i s adequate and th e resul t expected is not produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
Thus, if th e quantity of poison used is sufficient to kill an ordinary person, but the intended victim h a s developed strong resistance to poison because he h a s been working in a mine, the crime committed is frustrated murder.
Employment of "ineffectual means."
A tried to kill B by puttin g in his soup a substanc e which he thought w a s arsenic wh e n in fact it wa s sugar.
B could not have been killed, because the m e ans employed w a s ineffectual. But A showed criminal tendency and,
A r t . 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — W h e n e v e r a c o u r t h a s k n o w l e d g e of a n y a c t w h i c h i t m a y d e e m p r o p e r t o r e p r e s s a n d w h i c h i s n o t p u n i s h a b l e b y l a w , i t s h a l l r e n d e r t h e p r o p e r d e c i s i o n a n d s h a l l r e p o r t t o t h e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e , t h r o u g h t h e D e p a r t m e n t hence, he should be punished for it in accordance with Art.
4, par. 2, in relation to Art. 59.
A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter, A, not knowing tha t it w a s empty. When he pressed the trigger it did not fire. The m e ans used by A is ineffectual.