Jacinto vs. People G.R. No.

162540, July 13, 2009 Facts: In the month of June 1997, Baby Aquino handed petitioner BDO postdated check in the amount of P10,000. The check was payment for Babys purchases form Mega Foam Intl Inc. and the petitioner was then the collector of Mega Foam. The check was deposited in the landbank account of the brother in law of the petitioner, the husband of Jacqueline, the inventory clerk Mega Foam. Ricablanca also an employee of Mega Foam received a call from land bank that the said check was bounced and she also received a call from a customer asking if she could make check payments in the name of Mega Foam instead of issuing the check payable to cash as instructed by Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca then phoned accused Anita Valencia, a former employee/collector of Mega Foam asking to inform Jacqueline about the bounced check. Ricablanca explained that she had to call and relay the message to Anita because the Capitles did not have a phone. Anita then told Ricablanca to ask Baby Aquino to replace the check with cash and divide the cash into four. For herself, Ricablanca, Jacinto and Jacquiline. Upon the advise of Mega Foams accountant, Ricablanca reported the matter to the owner of Mega Foam, Joseph Dyhengco. Thereafter, the owner talked to Baby Aquino where she confirmed the fact and Baby Aquino told the owner that she replaced the bounced check of 10,000 cash. Dyhengco filed a complaint with the NBI and worked out an entrapment operation with its agents. After the entrapment, petitioner and Valencia were arrested by NBI agents. The RTC decision finds the 3 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime qualified theft. The 3 accused appealed to CA, wherein it acquits Jacquiline Capitle, reduced the sentenced against Valencia and the sentence against Jacinto, the petitioner stands. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari. Issue: 1. Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of a crime not charged in the information 2. Whether or not a worthless check can be the object of theft 3. whether or not the prosecution has proved petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt Ruling: the petition is granted. The decision and resolution of CA if modified. Petitioner Jacinto is found guilty of impossible crime and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. Held: 1. The fact that the petitioner further planned to have the dishonored check replaced with cash by its issuer is a separate and different scheme. Unfortunately since, the said scheme is not included or covered by the allegations in the information, the Court cannot pronounce judgement on the accused, otherwise it would violate the due process clause of the Constitution 2. the personal property subject to theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. In this case, the petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was apparently without value. Under the definition of theft in Art. 308 of the RPC, there is only one operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft-the taking of personal property of another. The fact that petitioner was later entrapped receiving P5,000 marked money, which she thought was the cash replacement of the dishonored check is of no moment. Parsing to the definition of theft, there is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law-that theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of another without the latters consent. Since the crime of theft is not continuing offense, petitioners act of receiving the cash replacement should not be Considered as a continuation of the theft. 3. when the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging form 200 t0 500 pesos. Requisites of an impossible crime (Art. 4, par. 2) 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property 2. That the act was done with evil intent 3. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffecutal