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 Baby’s purchases from Mega Foam International, Inc. The said check was
deposited to the account of Jacqueline Capitle’s 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, petitioner’s 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.
Petitioner’s 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.