Practice question
In pursuing nonexistent valuables, an actor intentionally destroys another’s window. The destruction independently satisfies all elements of malicious mischief. The actor asks the court to replace that established offense with impossible crime solely because the valuables were absent. Which is correct?
- Absent valuables erase the property destruction
- Any failed objective converts every act into impossible crime
- The doctrine cannot be used to displace a separately established actual offense committed by the acts
- Evil intent makes the window belong to the actor
- The court must ignore all other penal provisions
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Articles4(2),6 and59: impossible objective or means distinguished from stages of a possible felony.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/oct1992/gr_103119_1992.html — Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 103119, October 21, 1992, main decision: factual and legal impossibility, absent intended victim and empty-pocket example.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_162540_2009.html — Jacinto v. People, G.R. 162540, July 13, 2009, main decision: evil intent, impossible taking of a worthless check and distinction from a separate criminal scheme.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.