Jacinto v. People

In June 1997, Baby Aquino gave Gemma Jacinto, then a collector of Mega Foam International, Inc., a BDO check for P10,000, postdated July 14, 1997, as payment for purchases. Jacinto never remitted it. It was deposited in the account of Generoso Capitle, husband of her sister Jacqueline, a former Mega Foam clerk, and it bounced. A former co-employee, Anita Valencia, told Mega Foam employee Rowena Ricablanca to have Aquino replace the check with cash. She proposed dividing the money four ways. Ricablanca reported this to the owner, who arranged an NBI entrapment with P10,000 in marked bills. In August 1997 Jacinto handed Ricablanca the bounced check. Later Ricablanca pretended to collect cash from Aquino and gave P5,000 each to Valencia and Jacinto, who were arrested with fluorescent powder on their hands. Aquino had meanwhile paid Mega Foam P10,000 in cash to replace the check. The RTC convicted Jacinto, Valencia and Capitle of qualified theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed Jacinto's sentence, reduced Valencia's, and acquitted Capitle.

1. 1Whether Jacinto could be convicted of a crime not charged in the information.
2. 2Whether a worthless check can be the object of theft.
3. 3Whether Jacinto's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Guilty of an impossible crime only (Peralta, J.). The facts otherwise showed the elements of qualified theft under Articles 308 and 310. Jacinto took the check without her employer's consent, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence. But the property stolen must have some value, since theft requires intent to gain and Article 309 grades the penalty by value. The check was worthless because it was dishonored, and Mega Foam was paid in cash anyway. Following Intod v. Court of Appeals, an impossible crime has three requisites. The act would be an offense against persons or property. It was done with evil intent. And its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed were inadequate or ineffectual. Inherent impossibility may be legal, where the intended acts would not be a crime even if completed, or factual. Factual impossibility arises where extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent consummation, like picking an empty pocket. Jacinto's case was factual impossibility. She performed all the acts for qualified theft, and only the check being unfunded, which she did not know, prevented the crime. Under Valenzuela v. People, theft is produced by the taking. The taking was complete when she took the check. Receiving the marked cash was not needed to consummate the crime. Theft is not a continuing offense, so that later act only corroborated her intent to gain. The plan to get a cash replacement was a separate fraudulent scheme not alleged in the information, and convicting her for it would violate due process. She was sentenced to six months of arresto mayor under Articles 4(2) and 59.