Case Digest (G.R. No. 162540)
Facts:
Gemma T. Jacinto, together with Anita Busog De Valencia y Rivera and Jacqueline Capitle, was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 131, with Qualified Theft for allegedly taking and depositing Banco De Oro Check No. 0132649 dated July 14, 1997 in the amount of P10,000.00, paid by Baby Aquino for purchases from Mega Foam Int'l., Inc. The RTC convicted all three on October 4, 1999.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on December 16, 2003 modifying the RTC sentence (Jacinto's sentence retained; Valencia's reduced; Jacqueline acquitted), and denied reconsideration on March 5, 2004; Jacinto filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Can petitioner be convicted of a crime not charged in the Information?
- Can a worthless (dishonored) check be the object of theft?
- Did the prosecution prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling:
The petition was granted and the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution were modified. The Supreme Court held that petitioner was not guilty of consummated Qualified Theft but was guilty of an impossible crime under Article 4, paragraph 2, and Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced her to six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. The Court declined to convict petitioner for the separate fraudulent scheme to convert the dishonored check into cash because it was not alleged in the Information.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that theft requires that the thing taken have value under Article 308 and Article 310; the postdated check had been dishonored and thus was valueless, so the consummation of theft was factually impossible. Relying on Intod v. Court of Appeals, the Court found that petitioner performed the acts and entertained the intent to gain but extraneous circumstances beyond her knowledge prevented the intended offense, fitting the definition of an impossible crime under Article 4(2) and the penalty framework of Article 59. The receipt of marked money in the entrapment operation merely corroborated intent and did not supply the element of value nor authorize conviction for an uncharged fraudulent scheme, consistent with the due process requirement.
Doctrine:
- Article 308 and Article 310 require that the thing stolen possess value for theft to be consummated.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)