What is an impossible crime?

An impossible crime is one where the acts performed would have been a crime against person or
property but which is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

What are the requisites of impossible crime?

The requisites of an impossible crime are:

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent; and
3. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual. (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009)
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

What are the 2 kinds of inherent impossibility?

1. Legal impossibility - occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
It would apply to those circumstances where
a. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
b. there is intention to perform the physical act;
c. there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
d. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. (Intod vs.
CA)

Examples:

A. Killing a person already dead. A dead person cannot be injured or killed again. (People vs. Balmores, 85
Phil. 493 (1950) Of the offender knew that the victim is already dead when he stabbed him, he will not be liable for
an impossible crime because his mind was not criminal.
B. X stole a watch from the possession of C which turned out to be the watch he owns but lost 2 weeks earlier. X
cannot be the thief of his own property. In theft, it is essential that the offender take a personal property belonging to
another.

2) Factual impossibility - occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

Examples:

A. A man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet and
finds the pocket empty.
B. X shoots the place where he thought his victim Z would be, although in reality, Z was not present in
said place.

Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after
having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that
the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the
intended victim did not come home that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually
the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. CA affirmed the
judgment but the SC modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible
crime. (Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992)

C. Accused was a collector for a company called Mega Foam Int’l Inc. and received a P10,000 check as
payment from a Mega Foam customer. However, instead of turning over the check to Mega Foam, the
accused took the check and had it deposited into her brother-in-law’s bank account. It turns out the the
check was not funded.

In this case, petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime
against property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check
meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the
check bounced, she would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore,
it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner
at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned
out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had
received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. (Jacinto vs. People)

What will be the liability of the offender if the crime is not produced although there is adequate or
effectual means employed?

If the crime is not produced although there is adequate or effectual means employed, it cannot be
impossible crime but a frustrated felony. So, if a sufficient quantity of poison was administered to the
victim but he did not die, the felony was not produced due to his possible impunity to the poison, which
is an act independent of the will of the offender. (Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review)

The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC

● A administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend B whom he believed to be pregnant which turned out
not to be true. B became ill for more than 30 days. B will not be liable for impossible crime of abortion but
for for serious physical injuries.

● A, with intent to take the watch of B who was then leaning on a tree, stabbed the latter and then took
his watch. It turned out that B had been dead hours before. What crime/s were committed?

If B were alive before he was stabbed, A would have been liable for robbery with homicide. Seemingly, A is
liable for impossible crime of homicide because there is an inherent impossibility of killing B because the
latter was already dead before the assault. But A could not be liable for impossible crime of homicide
because also committed another crime which is theft. Thus, A is liable for theft.

● A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Because this person was
exquisitely dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. When he
reached a motel, A suddenly swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger, but he found out that
his passenger was not a woman but a man, and so he pushed him out of the car, and gave him fist blows.
Is an impossible crime committed? If not, is there any crime committed at all?

It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been a crime against chastity. The crime is
physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger. There are two
ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were
committed under circumstances of rape, meaning to say, there is employment of violence or intimidation
or the victim is deprived of reason. Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is
committed. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness require a
victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. If it is committed
under the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman.

Is there an impossible crime of rape?

Yes, because rape now is a crime against persons. Ex. A raped the corpse of Z. (Boado, Notes and Cases on
the Revised Penal Code)

Why is impossible crime punished?

● The rationale of Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies. (Intod vs. CA)
● The purpose of punishing impossible crime is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

What is the penalty for impossible crime?

When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the
same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its
nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially
inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine
from 200 to 500 pesos. (Art. 59, RPC)