Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding conflicting claims over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to Ricardo’s house. Rafael knew about Roberto’s plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for him there, until the task had been accomplished, so that he could drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo’s house, for the purpose of warning him in case there was any danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the vicinity. All three – Roberto, Rafael and Ruel – agreed to the plan and their respective roles.
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to the nearest corner near Ricardo’s house. Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo’s bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode in Rafael’s car where they drove to the next town to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of town when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident.
(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the crime/s committed (2.5%); and
(b) If a crime was committed, what is the degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) Yes, an impossible crime of murder was committed; and (b) Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel are all criminally liable as co-principals.
Under Article 4(2) of the RPC, an impossible crime occurs when an act against persons is inherently impossible due to factual impossibility. Under Article 8 in relation to Article 17, when conspiracy exists, the act of one is the act of all, making all conspirators co-principals.
Here, Roberto shot at Ricardo's bedroom to kill him, but failed because Ricardo was absent, creating factual impossibility. Since Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel agreed to the plan and executed coordinated roles—shooter, getaway driver, and lookout—all three acted in conspiracy.
Consequently, an impossible crime of murder was committed, and Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel are liable as co-principals.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What constitutes an impossible crime under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code?
An impossible crime occurs when an act against persons or property fails due to inherent impossibility or ineffectual means.
When does factual impossibility exist in an attempted killing under Article 4(2) of the RPC?
Factual impossibility exists when an unknown factual circumstance, such as the victim's absence, prevents the crime.
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, what is the legal consequence of establishing a criminal conspiracy?
Conspiracy renders the act of one conspirator the legal act of all co-conspirators.
What is the degree of criminal participation of a getaway driver and lookout who conspire with the shooter?
Conspirators who act as getaway driver and lookout share equal liability as co-principals under Article 17.
What is the penalty objective for penalizing an impossible crime under the Revised Penal Code?
Penalizing impossible crimes aims to suppress the offender's demonstrated criminal propensity and dangerousness.
Learn more about these topics
1. Impossible Crime Requisites
Under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an impossible crime is committed 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. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor prevent the consummation of the intended crime, such as shooting into an empty bed where the intended victim was absent.
2. Conspiracy and Liability
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all. All participants who contribute materially to the execution of the common criminal design are criminally liable as co-principals under Article 17, regardless of the individual character or extent of their specific physical acts during the execution.
3. Factual Impossibility Execution
Factual impossibility arises when an offender performs all acts necessary to execute a felony against a person, but the intended criminal result cannot physically occur due to an existing factual condition unknown to the perpetrator. In such cases, the law penalizes the offender's criminal propensity and dangerous disposition through an impossible crime conviction, ensuring that criminal acts aimed at taking human life do not escape penal sanction merely because of the victim's fortuitous physical absence.