JACINTO VS PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 162540, JULY 13, 2009

PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

In June 1997, petitioner Gemma Jacinto received a BDO check from Baby Aquino; the check worth
P10,000 was payment for Aquinos purchases from Mega Foam Intl., Inc., for whom the petitioner was
working as a collector. The check was deposited in the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, the
husband of Jacqueline Capitle, who was the petitioners sister and a former Mega Foam employee. Later
in July, Land Bank called Mega Foam to inform them that the check bounced. The call was received by
Mega Foam employee Rowena Ricablanca. Ricablanca then called Anita Valencia, another former Mega
Foam employee and the Capitles neighbor, to relay to Jacqueline the issue regarding the bounced
check. Valencia told Risablanca that the check was from Baby Aquino, and instructed her to ask Aquino
for a cash payment of P10,000; The cash was meant to be divided between petitioner Jacinto, Valencia,
Capitle, and Risablanca, whom Valencia had invited to join in the plot. Ricablanca was advised by Mega
Foams accountant to inform the companys owner, Joseph Dyhengco, regarding the plot, who in turn
contacted and coordinated with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI conducted an
entrapment operation using marked bills, which led to the arrest of the petitioner and her co-accused
on August 21, 1997. On October 4, 1999, the RTC Caloocan City, Branch 131, found petitioner Jacinto,
Valencia, and Capitle guilty of qualified theft. Each was sentenced to imprisonment of five (5) years, five
(5) months, eleven (11) days as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days, as
maximum. The three petitioned the decision to the CA on December 16, 2003

ISSUE: Is stealing a worthless check count as an Impossible Crime?

HELD:

Yes. An Impossible Crime fulfills the following conditions:

1) An act performed as offense against persons or property.

2) An act done with evil intent.

3) Accomplishing the act is inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate
or ineffectual.

In the context of the petitioner, taking the check demonstrates the intent for theft, but it was impossible
to complete the act because the check was unfunded. And since theft is not a continuing offense, the
petitioner's act of receiving the marked bills during the entrapment should not be considered as a
continuation of the theft. This is at most corroborating evidence to strengthen proof of her intent to
gain. The CA modifies its decision on December 16, 2003, and its resolution dated March 5,
2004. Petitioner Jacinto is found guilty of an impossible crime as per Articles 4 and 59 of the RPC, and is
sentenced to to six (6) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the costs.