Under article 4, these are the means on how a person can incur

criminal liability. And under paragraph 2 it pertains

to IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.
Basically, Impossible crime is not a felony, because it is just an
act. An act that would be an offense against person or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
But why is it being punished, since it is not a felony? The answer
is that it is being punished because of the CRIMINAL MIND OF
THE OFFENDER.
So, in order for a person to incur impossible crime these are the
following elements:
1. That a person performs an act which could be an offense against
another person.
2. That he has an evil intent
3. That the crime he intended to commit is impossible of being
consummated, either because of PHYSICAL OR LEGAL
IMPOSSIBILITY or the MEANS EMPLOYED IS
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL.
4. Provided that the act should not constitute violation of any other
provision of the revised penal code.
PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY:
Physical impossibility has been actualized in the case of INTOD
VS PEOPLE[1] In this case, Intod wants to kill his enemy and
because of that he goes to house of his enemy. The laborer whom
intod had inquired, on where the victim could be found pointed to
a room in the house. “Nandyn lang po sa kwarto dyn (He was in
that room)” So Intod armed with his armalite riffle, fired shots at
the room only to discover that, the intended victim had gone to
another place. In this case, the SC held that Intod is only liable for
impossible crime, because there is this physical impossibility to
kill the intended victim.
INEFFECTUAL MEANS:
Example: A person intending to kill his rival and invited his rival,
and then the offender pick a bottle believing it contains person and
pour it in the drink of his rival but despite the fact the bottle is
almost finished he is still asking for more. Then he found that the
bottle he poured is just sugar and not poison. Here there is an intent
to kill the victim but because of some ineffectual means the
intended crime was not consummated. However, he is guilty of
impossible crime.

LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY:
X who lost his wrist watch to a snatcher and wanted to own a wrist
watch again. He pickpocket in Quiapo a wrist watch, when he
examined he discovered that it was the same wrist watch that was
snatched by the snatcher. This is an example of impossible crime
by means of legal impossibility because it is legally impossible for
the owner of that thing to be liable for theft. He has an evil intent
on that time but there was a legal impossibility of committing theft.
LAST ELEMENT: Provided that the act should not constitute
violation of any other provision of the revised penal code.
 The last element is one of the most important elements in
impossible crime. Because if there are other crimes that has been
committed before the supposed impossible crime has been
consummated then there is no impossible crime.
EXAMPLE: X is a suitor of a pretty woman. But his offer of love
was not accepted by the woman. And he said, “ok tatangapin ko”
but at the back of his mind “By hook or by crook magiging akin ka
din” So one evening, one month after that incident where his offer
of love was not accepted. Learning that the girl he was courting
was left alone in her house. He went to the house. And then he
found the house to be closed, he peek through the window and sees
the girl lying in the sofa.
But the door is locked in the inside. To get inside of the house he
climb the window and surreptitiously approached the girl who
lying in the sofa and believing she was asleep he began removing
her underwear and mounted on her until he was able to penetrate
her. But he was surprised because the body of girl is already cold
only to discover that the girl had already died 20 minutes ago
because of cardiac arrest.
1. What was there an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME committed?
2. There is no more impossible crime there because there was a
last element in impossible crime “Provided that the act should not
constitute violation of any other provision of the revised penal
code.
When he entered the house, he already violated ARTICLE
280 which is a case of TRESSPASS TO DWELING, it already
constitute a crime based on other provision of the law.
So the crime to be charged is only TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING. Had the door been open then it was through the
door that he entered and he penetrated the girl and discovered that
she was already dead then that would be considered as an
impossible crime. Because rape now is a crime against person.
TRIVIA: Prior to the enactment of R.A 8353, there is no
impossible crime of rape, because rape is still a crime against
chastity and not a crime against person. It is only when a new
provision of the RPC was inserted in Title 8, that is ARTICLE
266-A. It transforms the crime of rape to crime against chastity to
crime against person.
[1] G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 SULPICIO
INTOD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.