Related Provisions:
People v Balmores
Impossible Crimes
Date: 1950, Feb 16
Ponente: Ozaete, J
SUMMARY:
Appellant was sentenced to an excessive penalty for
trying to falsify a sweepstakes ticket (in a ridiculous
manner). Appellant’s counsel tries to argue that it was
an impossible crime in order to lower the penalty. Court
rules it was not an impossible crime.
ISSUES:
1. WON the facts charged in the information did
not constitute an offense.
2. WON the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
convict him on a plea of guilty because, being
illiterate, and not assisted by counsel.
3. WON the crime committed an impossible crime
(with regards to Art 59 of the RPC).
FACTS:
1. Appellant tore off the bottom of a genuine 1/8
unit ticket of a Philippine Sweepstakes ticket
removing the number and substituting it by
writing in ink 07400, a prize winning number for
the June 29, 1947 draw.
2. Appellant presented ticket to claim the prize
(P359.55). Employee receiving the ticket noticed
that it was falsified and called for a policeman
who arrested the appellant right then and there
3. Appellant waived right to counsel and plead
guilty to the information charged. Was convicted
of the crime of Estafa through falsification of a
security. Sentenced to not less than 10 yrs and 1
day of prision mayor and not more than 12 yrs
and 1 day of reclusion temporal, a fine of P100
and the costs.
4. Appellant’s counsel contends that there was no
such 1/8 unit ticket for the June 29, 1947, draw
as only 1/4 unit tickets were issued.
5. Counsel contends that the information did not
show that the original number of the ticket was
not 07400; if the original number 07400 then it
could not have been falsification.
6. Counsel also contends that trial court lacked
jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty
because, being illiterate, he was not assisted by
counsel.
HOLDING:
Yes. Court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that
only 1/4 unit tickets were issued. Courts cannot take
judicial notice of what is not of common knowledge. If
relevant, should have been proved. However, even if
this were true, it bolsters the theory that the ticket was
indeed spurious.
With regards the number. If the original number was
indeed 07400, there would have been no need for
appellant to alter the ticket in any way.
No. The appellant expressly waived the right to counsel
and no law prohibits such waiver. Appellant’s illiteracy
does not matter.
No. While the appellant may have been reckless or
foolish in believing such a blatant falsification could have
succeeded, that did not make the crime impossible
under Art. 2 of the RPC with regards to Art 59.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. —
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
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 an account of the
employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case
of failure to commit the crime because
the means employed or the aims
sought are impossible. —
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.
Examples of an impossible crime, punishable under
article 59 of the RPC, are the following: (1) When one
tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance
which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is
common salt; and (2) when one tries to murder a
corpse.
**Note
Had it been successfully argued that it was an impossible
crime, penalty would be arresto mayor as per Art 59.
Related Provisions:
Art. 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. —

“We realize that the penalty is too severe, considering In the same way, the court shall
all the circumstances of the case, but we have no submit to the Chief Executive,
discretion to impose a lower penalty than authorized by through the Department of Justice,
law. The exercise of clemency is vested by the such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the
Constitution in the Chief Executive and not in this court.”
execution of the sentence, when a
strict enforcement of the provisions
RULING: of this Code would result in the
We are constrained to affirm the sentence appealed imposition of a clearly excessive
from, with costs against the appellant. penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury
caused by the offense.

**How the Penalty was fixed:

Penalty (art. 166) for the forging or falsification of

"treasury or bank notes or certificates or other
obligations and securities" is reclusion temporal in its
minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000.

Being a complex crime of attempted estafa through

falsification of an obligation or security, the penalty
should be imposed in its maximum period (art. 48).

Taking into consideration mitigating circumstance of lack

of instruction, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum cannot be lower than prision mayor in its
maximum period, which is 10 years and 1 day to 12
years.

Therefore, sentence was: not less than 10 yrs and 1 day

of prision mayor and not more than 12 yrs and 1 day of
reclusion temporal, a fine of P100 and the costs.