Impossible Crime: Comprehensive Overview
The concept of impossible crime under Philippine law is enshrined in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It is an exceptional doctrine in criminal law, where criminal liability arises even if the crime sought to be committed could not possibly be accomplished due to the inherent nature of the act or the means employed being inadequate or insufficient. Below is an exhaustive discussion:
Definition and Legal Basis
Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the RPC:
"Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense 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."
Key Characteristics of Impossible Crime
Intent to Commit a Crime:
- There must be a clear and manifest criminal intent (dolo). The offender must have the purpose of violating the law or causing harm.
Target Crime Would Be a Crime Against Persons or Property:
- The act performed must relate to a crime against persons (e.g., homicide, murder) or property (e.g., theft, robbery). Crimes outside this scope do not qualify as impossible crimes.
Inherent Impossibility or Inadequate Means:
- The act performed is inherently incapable of producing the intended result because:
- The object of the crime does not exist or is absent.
- The means employed are inadequate or insufficient.
- The act performed is inherently incapable of producing the intended result because:
No Actual Harm Caused:
- Since the crime is impossible to complete, no actual harm or damage is caused. However, the attempt still poses a threat to public safety or order, justifying liability.
Punished as a "Light Felony":
- Impossible crimes are penalized as a light felony under Article 59 of the RPC, with arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine.
Examples of Impossible Crimes
Inherent Impossibility:
- Attempting to kill someone who is already dead.
- Attempting to steal from an empty wallet, believing it contains money.
Ineffectual Means:
- Using a toy gun to commit murder.
- Using magic spells to cause harm or death.
Elements of Impossible Crime
The offender performs an act.
The act, if possible, would constitute a felony against persons or property.
The act was not accomplished because of either:
- Inherent impossibility of producing the intended crime, or
- Ineffectual or inadequate means used.
The offender has criminal intent (dolo).
Distinction Between Impossible Crime and Other Offenses
| Impossible Crime | Attempted Crime | Frustrated Crime |
|---|---|---|
| Crime is inherently impossible. | Crime is possible but interrupted. | Crime is possible but does not succeed due to extraneous factors. |
| No harm caused. | No harm caused, but preparatory acts performed. | Harm intended but not fully accomplished. |
| Punished as a light felony. | Punished as a more severe felony. | Punished as a more severe felony. |
Inherent Impossibility and Ineffectual Means
Inherent Impossibility:
- Refers to circumstances where the act can never produce the intended criminal result. This includes:
- Non-existent Object: Shooting a corpse.
- Absurdity: Using witchcraft to kill someone.
Ineffectual Means:
- Means employed are inadequate or ineffective to achieve the intended result, e.g., trying to poison someone with a non-toxic substance.
Policy Basis for Penalizing Impossible Crimes
Prevention of Public Disorder:
- The law aims to prevent acts that, though incapable of fruition, disturb social peace and order.
Affirmation of Criminal Intent:
- The offender's intent to commit a crime is considered reprehensible and deserving of penalty.
Case Law on Impossible Crimes
People v. Lachica, G.R. No. L-24352 (1968):
- Facts: Lachica attempted to kill a man who had already died.
- Ruling: An impossible crime was committed. The offender’s intent was criminal, though the crime was inherently impossible to accomplish.
Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119 (1994):
- Facts: The accused tried to kill a person, but the latter was not present at the location.
- Ruling: The Court held that an impossible crime was committed due to the inherent impossibility of achieving the criminal intent.
People v. Dizon, G.R. No. L-56115 (1983):
- Facts: Dizon attempted to steal, but the target object was non-existent.
- Ruling: An impossible crime was committed because of the lack of an object to be stolen.
Conclusion
Impossible crimes reflect the law’s recognition of criminal intent, even in cases where the intended offense cannot materialize. By penalizing these acts, the state underscores its commitment to maintaining public safety and deterring malicious intent, no matter how implausible its execution may be.