Legal defenses often explore the limits of criminal intent, particularly when an act appears impossible to accomplish. The Supreme Court case of People of the Philippines vs. Hesson Callao and Junello Amad highlights the legal distinction between murder and impossible crimes, clarifying how conspiracy impacts criminal liability.
Background of the Case
This case stems from the gruesome killing of Fernando Adlawan, allegedly orchestrated by Enrile Yosores and carried out by Hesson Callao and Junello Amad.
A witness overheard a plan to kill Fernando in the flea market but did not know the motive.
Later, the accused went to Fernando’s house, where Junello struck Fernando with firewood, then hacked him with a bolo.
Hesson stabbed Fernando twice in the chest, then removed his heart, while Junello took out his liver—feeding both organs to a pig before dismembering the body.
Hesson argued that Fernando was already dead when he stabbed him and should be convicted of an impossible crime rather than murder.
Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) convicted Hesson of murder, a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court, rejecting his impossible crime defense.
Key Legal Doctrines from the Case
1️⃣ Impossible Crimes Require Inherent Impossibility
To be considered an impossible crime, the act must be: ✔ Legally impossible (if the intended act would not be a crime even if completed). ✔ Physically impossible (if the means to commit the act were inadequate or ineffectual).
Hesson argued that stabbing an already dead Fernando was legally impossible, but the SC rejected this claim.
2️⃣ Lack of Verification Undermines the Impossible Crime Argument
The witness assumed Fernando was already dead, but never checked his pulse or breathing.
Without direct proof of death before Hesson’s attack, the court ruled that his actions contributed to the murder.
3️⃣ Conspiracy Makes All Actions Legally Binding
The SC ruled that Hesson and Junello conspired to commit murder, making each act attributable to both.
Even if Fernando had already been fatally hacked, Hesson’s participation remained criminal due to conspiracy.
Legal Takeaways from the Case
✅ An impossible crime must be truly unachievable – Simply claiming legal impossibility does not exempt defendants from liability.
✅ Verification of the victim’s condition matters – Courts require proof that a victim was already dead before additional harm occurred.
✅ Conspiracy strengthens criminal liability – If multiple attackers work together, each is equally responsible for the crime.
✅ Murder charges apply even if fatal wounds were inflicted earlier – As long as conspiracy is proven, all conspirators share guilt for the homicide.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the limits of impossible crimes and reinforces the doctrine of conspiracy in violent offenses. Despite Hesson’s argument that Fernando was already dead, his participation in the brutal act made him equally liable for murder alongside Junello.
📌 For the full text of the Supreme Court’s ruling, check .