JACINTO vs PEOPLE

GEMMA JACINTO vs PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 162540 13July2009 592SCRA26

FACTS: In June 1997, Baby Aquino, handed petitioner -collector of Mega Foam, a post
dated checked worth P10,000 as payment for Babys purchases from Mega Foam
International, Inc. The said check was deposited to the account of Jacqueline Capitles
husband-Generoso. Rowena Recablanca, another employee of Mega Foam, received
a phone call from an employee of Land Bank, who was looking for Generoso to inform
Capitle that the BDO check deposited had been dishonored. Thereafter, Joseph
Dyhenga talked to Baby to tell that the BDO Check bounced. However, Baby said that
she had already paid Mega Foam P10,000 cash in August 1997 as replacement for the
dishonored check.

Dyhengco filed a compliant with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked
out an entrapment operation with its agents. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were
arrested. The NBI filed a criminal case for qualified theft against the two (2) and
Jacqueline Capitle.

RTC rendered a decision that Gemma, Anita and Jacqueline GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT and each of the sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of Five (5) years, Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days to Six (6) years,
Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed falls the definition of Impossible Crime.

HELD: Yes, Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioners act of
receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as continuation of the Theft.

The requisites of an impossible crime are:

1. That the Act performed would be an offer against persons or property;

2. That the act was alone with evil intent; and

3. That the accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was
either inadequate or ineffectual.

The time that petitioner took a possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had
performed all the acts to consummate that crime of theft had it not been impossible of
accomplishment in this case.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of
an impossible crime and suffer the penalty of Six (6) months of arresto mayor and pay
courts.

Subject: Criminal Law 1- Impossible Crimes

Ponente: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

Doctrine: The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be
an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3)
that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual

FACTS: Petitioner Jacinto was an employee of Megafoam International, received a

check amounting to Pho 10, 000 as payment of Baby Aquino to her purchase to
Megafoam. However, instead of delivering it to Megafoam, she deposited it to her
account. The check was later discovered to be unfunded. Both RTC and CA ruled that
the petitioner was guilty of qualified theft. Petitioner filed a petition for review of
certiorari to SC.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING: NO. Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only. ,

The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3)
that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual.

Petitioners evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check
meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for
the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value thereof,
which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance
of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented
the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to
be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega
Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check.

Petition granted. Decision is MODIFIED. Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of

an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arrresto
mayor, and to pay the costs.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME - CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY

GEMMA T. JACINTO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 426

FACTS: Gemma, a collector of Mega Foam, received a P10,000 check from Baby, a
client of Mega. Instead of remitting the said collection, she gave the check to Gener,
her brother-in-law, the latter deposited it to his bank account, however, the said check
was dishonored by the bank due to lack of sufficient funds.
ISSUE: Whether Gemma is criminally liable for qualified theft.

HELD: NO. To be liable of the crime of qualified theft under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code, the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of
the thing stolen. Since Gemma unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to
Mega Foam was subsequently dishonored, the same was apparently without value.

Gemma is guilty of impossible crime as defined in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised

Penal Code. At the time Gemma took possession of the check of Mega Foam, she had
performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft, which is a crime against
property, had it not been impossible of accomplishment because it was apparently
without value when it was subsequently dishonored.

Jacinto v People

Petitioner had been convicted of qualified theft and is now seeking for a reversal of the
decision.

Facts:

Jacinto along with Valencia and Capitle was charged with qualified theft for having
stole and deposited check with an amount of 10,000 php. Such check was issued
by Baby Aquino for payment of her purchases from Mega Foam, but the check
bounced. Dyhengco found out about the theft and filed a complaint with the NBI. An
entrapment operation was conducted, with the use of marked bills. The entrapment
was a success and the petitioner along with her co-accused was arrested.

Issue:

Whether this can constitute as an impossible crime and not as qualified theft

Held:

This constitutes as an impossible crime. The requisites of an impossible crime are:1. that
the act performed would be an offense against persons or property

(all acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft was consummated crime against
property)

2. that the act was done with evil intent

(mere act of unlawful taking showed intent to gain)

3. that its accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual or the extraneous circumstance that constituted it as a
factual impossibility

(the fact that the check bounced)

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not
amount to a crime.(Impossibility of killing a dead person)

Factual impossibility when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond

his control prevent consummation of the intended crime. (Like the example in the case
of Intod: a man puts his hand on the coat pocket of another with intent to steal but gets
nothing since the pocket is empty)

From the time the petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega Foam,
she had performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft, had it not been
impossible of accomplishment in this case. Replacement for the check was no longer
necessary for the consummation of the crime since the crime of theft is not a continuing
offense, petitioners act of receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as
a continuation of the theft. The fact that the petitioner was caught receiving the
marked money was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen proof of her intent to
gain.