Jacinto v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto, along with Anita Busog de Valencia and Jacqueline Capitle, was charged with Qualified Theft for allegedly taking a ₱10,000.00 check issued by customer Baby Aquino to Mega Foam Int'l., Inc. The check, intended as payment for purchases, was handed by Baby Aquino to petitioner, who was the collector for Mega Foam. The check was later deposited into the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, husband of Jacqueline Capitle. Another employee, Rowena Ricablanca, learned that the check had been dishonored. Anita Valencia, a co-accused and former employee, proposed a plan to replace the check with cash and divide it among herself, Ricablanca, petitioner, and Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca reported the matter to the owner, Joseph Dyhengco, who confirmed with Baby Aquino that the check was indeed given to petitioner. Company records showed petitioner never remitted the check. Baby Aquino later paid Mega Foam ₱10,000.00 cash as replacement. An entrapment operation was conducted, leading to the arrest of petitioner and Anita Valencia after they received marked money, purportedly as replacement for the dishonored check. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 131, found petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto, Anita Valencia, and Jacqueline Capitle guilty of Qualified Theft and sentenced them to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed petitioner's conviction but modified the sentence for Anita Valencia and acquitted Jacqueline Capitle. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the CA's decision, raising issues on whether she could be convicted of a crime not charged, whether a worthless check could be the object of theft, and whether her guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner can be convicted of a crime not charged in the information. Whether a worthless check can be the object of theft. Whether the prosecution has proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, modifying the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto was found guilty of an Impossible Crime as defined and penalized in Articles 4(2) and 59 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to six (6) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner can be convicted of a crime not charged in the information: The Court ruled that while the prosecution established the elements of unlawful taking and intent to gain, the object of the theft, a dishonored check, was without value. Therefore, the crime of qualified theft could not have been produced. The Court applied the principle of impossible crime under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that the plan to have the dishonored check replaced with cash was a separate fraudulent scheme not included in the Information, and thus, judgment could not be rendered on it to avoid violating due process. The Court clarified that the entrapment involving the marked money was merely corroborating evidence for the intent to gain, not proof of consummated theft. On the issue of whether a worthless check can be the object of theft: The Court held that for a crime of theft to be produced, the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is supported by Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, where the penalty is dependent on the value of the stolen item. In this case, the check was postdated and subsequently dishonored, rendering it without value. The Court cited Intod v. Court of Appeals to explain that an impossible crime occurs when the act performed would be an offense were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or the use of inadequate means. The unlawful taking of the check was rendered impossible of accomplishment as a crime against property because the check itself was worthless due to insufficient funds, a fact unknown to the petitioner at the time of taking. The Court emphasized that the unlawful taking is complete from the moment the offender gains possession, but if the object is inherently valueless, the crime of theft cannot be consummated. On the issue of whether the prosecution has proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that while the prosecution proved the elements of unlawful taking and intent to gain, the subsequent dishonor of the check meant that the crime of theft was not produced. The Court reasoned that the petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft, but it was rendered impossible of accomplishment due to the factual impossibility of the check being valuable. The Court stated that the petitioner's act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed intent to gain. However, because the check bounced, it was worthless. Therefore, the crime of theft was not consummated. The Court concluded that the petitioner was guilty of an impossible crime, not qualified theft, because the intended crime could not have been produced due to the inherent worthlessness of the subject matter.
Main Doctrine
A person who unlawfully takes a postdated check with the intent to gain, but the check is subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds, is guilty of an impossible crime, not qualified theft, because the act of taking the worthless check was impossible of accomplishment as a crime against property due to factual impossibility.