Jacinto v. People e.
Anita told Ricablanca that the check came from Baby Aquino and
July 13, 2009 | Peralta, J. | Impossible crimes
PETITIONER: GEMMA T. JACINTO , petitioner
RESPONDENTS: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
DOCTRINE: Requisites of an impossible crime under paragraph 2, Article 4, in
relation to Article 59 of the RPC are:
a. The act performed wold be an offense against persons or property;
b. That the act was done with evil intent; and
c. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means
employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.
FACTS:
1. Jacinto along with Anita Busog de Valencia y Rivera and Jacqueline Capitle,
were charged with Quialified Theft:
a. The accused conspired together and mutually helped one another,
being then all employees of MEGA FOAM and as such had free
access inside the aforesaid establishment, with grave abuse of trust
and confidence reposed upon them with intent to gain and without
knowledge and consent of the owner, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and deposited in their own
account, BDO in the sum of P10,000, representing payment made
by customer Baby Aquino to Mega Foam.
2. Prosecution’s evidence, which the RTC and CA found to be more credible,
is as follows:
a. Isabelita Aquino Milabo (Baby Aquino) handed to Jacinto a BDO
check postdated July 14, 1997 in the amount of P10,000 for payment
of its purchases from Mega Foam. Jacinto was then the collector of
Mega Foam.
i. Somehow, the check was deposited in the Land Bank
account of Generoso Capitle, husband of Jacqueline
Capitle; the latter being the sister of Jacinto and the former
pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of Mega Foam.
b. Rowena Ricablanca, another employee of Mega Foam, received a
call from Jennifer Sanalila.
i. She wanted to know if she could issue checks payable to
the account of Mega Foam, instead of issuing to checks
payable to CASH. She was apparently instructed by
Jacquelin to make the cheks payable to CASH.
c. Ricablanca also received a call from Land Bank who was looking
for Generoso Capitle to inform him that the BDO check deposited
in his account had been dishonored.
d. Ricablanca called accused Anita, a former employee/collector of
Mega Foam, to inform Jacquelin about the call from Land Bank.
instructed Ricablanca to ask Baby Aquino to replace the check with
cash. Anita also told her of a plan to take the cash and divide it
equally into four:
i. Ricablanca, Jacinto, Jacquelin, and Anita.
f. Ricablanca reported the matter to the owner of Mega Foam, Joseph
Dyhengco.
g. Joseph talked to Baby Aquino and she confirmed that she handed a
BDO Check for P10,000 as payment for her purchases.
i. Jacinto also called her to inform her that her check bounced.
ii. The company records show that Jacinto never remitted the
check to Mega Foam. However, Baby Aquino said that she
had already paid Mega Foam P10,000 cash as replacement
for the dishonored check.
h. Generoso Capitle testified as hostile witness:
i. He admitted depositing the BDO check in his bank account,
but explained that he received it from some unknown
woman who arrived at his house to have the check
rediscounted.
i. Dyhengco filed a complaint with the NBI and worked out an
entrapment operation with its agents. Ricablanca was given marked
money and was tasked to pretend to go along with Anita’s plan.
j. Ricablanca went to Jacinto’s house, where she met Jacinto and
Jacquelin. Jacinto, her husband, and Ricablanca went to Anita’s
house; Jacquelin decided not to go with the group because she
decided to go shopping. It was only Jacinto, her husband,
Ricablanca and Anita who boarded Jacinto’s jeep and went to Baby
Aquino’s factory. Only Ricablanca alighted from the jeep and
entered the premises of Baby Aquino, pretending that she was
getting cash from Baby Aquino. However, the cash she brought was
the marked money. When Ricablanca came out, she gave P5,000
each to Anita and Jacinto. Thereafter, Jacinto and Anita were
arrested by NBI agents.
3. RTC held Jacino, Anita and Jacquelin guilty of qualified theft
ISSUE:
1. WoN a worthless check can be the object of theft? - NO
RULING: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated December 16, 2003, and its Resolution dated
March 5, 2004, are MODIFIED. Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of an
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME as dedined and penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of
the Revised Penal Code, respectively. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
six (6) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs.
RATIO:
1. Prosecution tried to establish the ff pieces of evidence to constitute the
elements of qualified theft defined under Art 308, in relation to Art 310 of
 the RPC: b. Physical impossibility
a. Taking of personal property – Jacinto did not remit the customer’s i. When extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
check payment and instead appropriated it for herself. beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
b. Property belonged to another – check belonged to Baby Aquino. intended crime.
c. Intent to gain – presumed from the act of unlawful taking and further 8. In Intod, the Court gave an example of an offense that involved factual
shown by the fact that the check was deposited to the bank account impossibility, i.e., a man puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the
of Jacinto’s brother-in-law. intention to steal the latter’s wallet, but gets nothing since the pocket is empty.
d. Done without the owner’s consent – she hid the fact that she had 9. Jacinto’s case is similar to the example above. Jacinto performed all the acts
received the check by not remitting it to consummate the crime. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she
e. w/o the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force would have received the face value of the check. Therefore, it was only due
upon things – check was voluntarily handed to Jacinto as she was to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown
the collector of the company to petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced.
f. done with grave abuse of confidence – she was entrusted with the a. Check was worthless because it was eventually dishonored and
collection of payments from customers Mega Foam had received the cash to relace the value of said check.
2. However, as may be gleaned from the aforementioned articles, the personal 10. The fact that petitioner was later entrapped receiving P5,000 marked money
property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intentio of the is of no moment. The court held in Valenzuela v. People that under the
accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Art 309, definition of theft, there is only one operative act of execution by the actor
where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed is dependent on the involved in theft – the taking of personal property of another.
value of the thing stolen. a. Theft is produced when there is deprication of personal property due
3. In this case, Jacinto unlawfully took the postdated check, but the same was to its taking by one with intent to gain.
apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the 11. As of the time Jacinto took the check, she had performed all the acts to
question arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced. consummate the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment
a. The Court must resolve the issue in the negative in this case. Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, Jacinto’s act
4. Intod v. CA of receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as continuation
a. Intod intended to kill a person so he pepperd the latter’s bedroom of theft.
with bullets, but since the intended victim was not home at the time, 12. Jacinto is guilty of an impossible crime.
no harm came to him.
b. He was adjudged guilty only of an impossible crime.
5. Requisites of an impossible crime under paragraph 2, Article 4, in relation to
Article 59 of the RPC are:
a. The act performed wold be an offense against persons or property;
b. That the act was done with evil intent; and
c. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means
employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.
6. Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an
offense against persons or property because:
a. The commission of the offense is inherently impossible of
accomplishment; or
b. The means employed is either:
i. Inadequate
ii. Ineffectual
7. To be impossible under the first clause under #6, te act intended by its nature
one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either:
a. Legal impossibility; or
i. Occurs where the intended acts, even if contemplated,
would not amount to a crime.