Facts:

The case involves Gemma T. Jacinto as the petitioner and the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events leading to the case occurred in July 1997 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila. Jacinto, along with two other women, Anita Busog de Valencia y Rivera and Jacqueline Capitle, was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 131. The charge stemmed from an incident where Jacinto, an employee of Mega Foam International Inc., allegedly conspired with her co-accused to unlawfully take a Banco De Oro Check No. 0132649 dated July 14, 1997, amounting to P10,000.00, which was payment from customer Baby Aquino for purchases made at Mega Foam. The check was deposited into the account of Generoso Capitle, Jacqueline's husband.

The prosecution's evidence indicated that Jacinto had received the check from Baby Aquino but failed to remit it to Mega Foam. Instead, it was deposited into Capitle's account. The check was lat...

Facts:

Background of the Case

Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto, along with Anita Busog de Valencia y Rivera and Jacqueline Capitle, was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City. The charge stemmed from the alleged unlawful taking of a Banco De Oro (BDO) check worth P10,000.00, which was payment from customer Baby Aquino to Mega Foam International Inc., where the accused were employees.

Prosecution’s Evidence

• Baby Aquino handed petitioner a BDO check (No. 0132649) dated July 14, 1997, as payment for purchases from Mega Foam. Petitioner was the company’s collector at the time.
• The check was deposited into the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, Jacqueline Capitle’s husband, instead of being remitted to Mega Foam.
• Rowena Ricablanca, another Mega Foam employee, received calls from a customer and a Land Bank employee regarding the dishonored check. She relayed this information to Anita Valencia, who proposed dividing the cash replacement of the check among herself, Ricablanca, petitioner, and Jacqueline Capitle.
• Joseph Dyhengco, Mega Foam’s owner, confirmed with Baby Aquino that the check was given to petitioner and that Baby Aquino had already replaced the dishonored check with cash in August 1997.
• An entrapment operation was conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Marked money was given to Ricablanca, who pretended to go along with the plan. Petitioner and Valencia were arrested after handling the marked money.

Defense’s Version

• Petitioner claimed she resigned from Mega Foam on June 30, 1997, and denied taking the check. She stated that Ricablanca asked her to accompany her to Baby Aquino’s house on the day of the arrest.
• Anita Valencia also denied involvement, claiming she was unaware of the plan and was merely accompanying Ricablanca.

RTC and CA Decisions

• The RTC convicted all three accused of Qualified Theft. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision, acquitting Jacqueline Capitle, reducing Anita Valencia’s sentence, and upholding petitioner’s conviction.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Elements of Qualified Theft Not Fully Met: While petitioner performed acts constituting the elements of Qualified Theft (taking personal property, intent to gain, lack of consent, and grave abuse of confidence), the check was dishonored and had no value. Thus, the crime of Qualified Theft was not consummated.

2. Impossible Crime Doctrine: The Court applied the doctrine of Impossible Crime, which requires:

   • An act that would be an offense against persons or property.
   • Evil intent.
   • Inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime due to extraneous circumstances.

   In this case, the check’s dishonor made it impossible for petitioner to gain from the theft, rendering the crime impossible to consummate.

3. Separate Fraudulent Scheme: The plan to replace the dishonored check with cash was a separate fraudulent act not covered by the Information. Thus, the Court could not rule on it without violating due process.

4. Legal Precedent: The Court cited Intod v. Court of Appeals and Valenzuela v. People to support its ruling. Theft is consummated upon the unlawful taking of property, regardless of the offender’s ability to dispose of it. However, the inherent worthlessness of the check made the crime impossible.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s actions constituted an Impossible Crime, not Qualified Theft, due to the check’s dishonor and lack of value. The petition was granted, and petitioner was sentenced to six months of arresto mayor.