Practice question
With intent to steal, a person puts a hand into another’s pocket to take the wallet believed to be there. The pocket was empty throughout. The acts constitute no other offense on the stipulated facts. Which doctrine is illustrated?
- Consummated theft of a wallet that existed
- Impossible crime based on factual impossibility
- Automatic innocence because evil intent never matters
- A completed physical injury
- A purely private thought without an act
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.