Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 (Art.

308; qualified theft)

FACTS:

Gemma Jacinto and two other women (Valencia, Capitle) were charged with Qualified
Theft.
Jacinto as the collector of Mega Foam Intl, Inc, received a BDO check worth P10,000
rom Isabelita Baby Aquino Milabo as payment of the latters purchase from Mega
Foam. However, the said check was deposited in the Land Bank account of Generoso
Capitle, husband of Jacqueline Capitle who is the sister of Jacinto and the former pricing
merchandising and inventry clerk of Mega Foam. The check was dishonored by LBP.
Apparently, Jacinto, who told Baby that the check bounced, never remitted the said BDO
check to Mega Foam. Also, Baby had paid 10K cash to replace the dishonored check.
There was a plan among Anita Valencia (former employee), Jacinto, Rowena Ricablanca
(employee), and Jacqueline Capitle to take the 10K cash and divide it among the four of
them.
Joseph Dyhengco, Mega Foam owner, filed complaint with the NBI and an entrapment
operation was conducted with Ricablanca holding the P10K marked money, pretending
that she was going along with Valencias plan. Jacinto and Valencia were arrested since
Capitle did not appear on the agreed date. Jacinto and Valencia received 5K each of the
marked money, which accused women asked from Baby Aquino as cash replacement of
the dishonored check.

ISSUE:
Whether

or

not

worthless

check

can

be

the

object

of

theft.

RULING:
No. A worthless check cannot be the object of theft. Jacinto is guilty of impossible crime
and sentence to 6 months of arresto mayor.
The following are the elements of qualified theft defined under Article 308, in relation to
Article 310, RPC:
(1) The taking of property;
(2) Said property belonged to another;
(3) The taking was done with intent to gain;
(4) It was done without the owners consent;
(5) It was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of
force upon things;
(6) It was done with grave abuse of confidence.
The personal property subject of theft must have some value, as the intention is to gain
from the thing stolen. Also, Article 309 provides that the penalty to be imposed depends on the
value of the thing stolen.

In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam but
the same was apparanetly without value, as it was subsequently dishonored.
The Court applied the principles under Intod v. CA. An impossible crime as defined
under Article 4(2), in relation to Art.59, has the following elements:
(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.
To be impossible of accomplishment, there must be:
i)
Legal impossibility; or
ii)
Physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
The case of Jacinto is akin to one of factual impossibility. Jacinto performed all the acts
to consummate the crime of qualified theft. Her evil intent cannot be denied since the mere act of
unlawfully taking the check showed her intent to gain. She would have received the face value of
the check if it werent dishonored. Therefore, it was duet to extraneous circumstance of the check
being unfunded thus the check being worthless, a fact unknown to her, that prevented the crime
from being produced.
Further, as of the time she took possession of the check, she had performed all the acts to
consummate the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment. The circumstance
of her receiving the 5K as supposed replacement for the dishonored check was no longer
necessary for the consummation of the qualified theft. Qualified theft is not a continuing crime,
hence, the receipt by petitioner of the marked money as cash replacement of the worthless check
should not be considered as a continuation of the theft. The receipt of the marked money was
merely corroborating evidence strengthening proof of her intent to gain.