Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    INTOD v. CA DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    erxha lado
    The petitioner Sulpicio Intod and three others were instructed by Aniceto Dumalagan to kill Bernardina Palangpangan due to a land dispute. That evening, the four men armed themselves and went to Palangpangan's house, where Intod and the others fired shots into the bedroom. However, Palangpangan was not home and the room was occupied by her son-in-law and family, who were unharmed. Intod was convicted of attempted murder but appealed, arguing it was an "impossible crime" since the intended victim was not present. The Supreme Court agreed and modified the conviction, holding that under Philippine law, an "impossible crime" is recognized and penal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    INTOD v. CA DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    erxha lado
    5K views2 pages
    The petitioner Sulpicio Intod and three others were instructed by Aniceto Dumalagan to kill Bernardina Palangpangan due to a land dispute. That evening, the four men armed themselves and went to Palangpangan's house, where Intod and the others fired shots into the bedroom. However, Palangpangan was not home and the room was occupied by her son-in-law and family, who were unharmed. Intod was convicted of attempted murder but appealed, arguing it was an "impossible crime" since the intended victim was not present. The Supreme Court agreed and modified the conviction, holding that under Philippine law, an "impossible crime" is recognized and penal

    Original Description:

    Case Digest for Criminal Law 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Sulpicio Intod and three others were instructed by Aniceto Dumalagan to kill Bernardina Palangpangan due to a land dispute. That evening, the four men armed themselves and went to Palangpangan's house, where Intod and the others fired shots into the bedroom. However, Palangpangan was not home and the room was occupied by her son-in-law and family, who were unharmed. Intod was convicted of attempted murder but appealed, arguing it was an "impossible crime" since the intended victim was not present. The Supreme Court agreed and modified the conviction, holding that under Philippine law, an "impossible crime" is recognized and penal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    5K views2 pages

    INTOD v. CA DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    erxha lado
    The petitioner Sulpicio Intod and three others were instructed by Aniceto Dumalagan to kill Bernardina Palangpangan due to a land dispute. That evening, the four men armed themselves and went to Palangpangan's house, where Intod and the others fired shots into the bedroom. However, Palangpangan was not home and the room was occupied by her son-in-law and family, who were unharmed. Intod was convicted of attempted murder but appealed, arguing it was an "impossible crime" since the intended victim was not present. The Supreme Court agreed and modified the conviction, holding that under Philippine law, an "impossible crime" is recognized and penal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    103119 October 21, 1992

    SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner,


    vs.
    HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
    PHILIPPINES, respondents.

    FACTS:

    Morning of February , 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino
    Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and
    asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and
    Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya
    that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that
    Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.

    At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Mandaya and the 4 men, all armed, arrived at
    Palangpangan’s housee in Katugasan. Mandaya pointed Palangpangan’s bedroom and the 4 men
    (including the petitioner) fired at said room. It turned out that Palangpangan was not there and it
    was occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room, no one was hit.

    The 4 men were identified by witnesses.

    RTC convicted Intod of attempted murder with the affirmation of the Court of Appeals.

    ISSUE: Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the judgment
    of the RTC Branch 14, Oroquieta City, finding him guilty of the crime of attempted murder.
    RULING: Petition GRANTED. The decision is Modified. Petitioner is help guilty of an
    impossible crime as defined by article 4 and 59 of the RPC.

    Art. 4 (2) CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. — Criminal Responsibility shall be incurred:


    xxx xxx xxx
    2. 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.
    The crime was not impossible and the facts were sufficient to convict the petitioner for attempted
    murder. Respondent alleged that there was intent. If it hadn’t been that Palangpangan was
    sleeping at her house at that time, then the crime is not impossible. In order for the commission
    of the offense to be impossible, the act must be by nature be impossible to accomplish.
    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 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.

    Impossible crimes are recognized unlike the other states. The impossibility of accomplishing the
    criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself. At this situation, it is a
    physical impossibility. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is
    sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

    All the circumstances which prevented the act to be committed will be treated as an accident
    independent of will – an element of attempted/frustrated felonies.

    You might also like