Case Summary (G.R. No. 162540)
Factual Background
In June and July 1997, a customer, Isabelita “Baby” Aquino, gave petitioner a postdated Banco De Oro check No. 0132649 dated July 14, 1997 in the amount of P10,000 as payment for purchases from Mega Foam Int’l, Inc. Petitioner was then a collector for Mega Foam. The check was later dishonored. Company records showed that petitioner did not remit the check to Mega Foam. The check was deposited into the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, husband of Jacqueline Capitle, who is petitioner’s sister and a former Mega Foam employee.
Investigative Events and Entrapment
After the dishonor, Mega Foam’s owner, Joseph Dyhengco, reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation. An entrapment operation was arranged. Ten pieces of P1,000 bills were marked and dusted with fluorescent powder. A co-employee, Rowena Ricablanca, agreed to cooperate. On dates in August 1997 Ricablanca met petitioner and others and staged efforts to replace the dishonored check with cash. During the operation petitioner received P5,000 of the marked money and was arrested. Forensic testing showed fluorescent powder on petitioner’s hands.
Trial Court Proceedings
Petitioner, together with Anita Busog de Valencia and Jacqueline Capitle, was tried for qualified theft. The trial court found all three guilty and, by Decision dated October 4, 1999, sentenced each to imprisonment of five years, five months, and eleven days as minimum to six years, eight months, and twenty days as maximum.
Court of Appeals Disposition
The three appellants brought the case to the Court of Appeals. By Decision dated December 16, 2003 the CA modified the RTC disposition: it affirmed petitioner’s sentence, reduced the sentence against Anita Valencia to four months arresto mayor medium, and acquitted Jacqueline Capitle. Petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration was denied by CA Resolution dated March 5, 2004. Petitioner alone filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Raised in the Petition
Petitioner raised, among others, the following issues: whether she could be convicted of a crime not charged in the information; whether a worthless check can be the object of theft; and whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution’s Case and Evidence
The prosecution relied on eyewitness and documentary evidence to prove unlawful taking and intent to gain. Testimony established that Baby Aquino gave petitioner the postdated P10,000 check; that petitioner failed to remit it to Mega Foam; and that the check was thereafter deposited in a third party’s account and was dishonored. The entrapment operation and the marked money, together with forensic detection of fluorescent powder on petitioner’s hands, were offered as corroborative evidence of intent and of receiving the replacement cash.
Defense Version
Petitioner and co-accused denied intent to steal. Petitioner acknowledged being a former collector who resigned June 30, 1997, and asserted she was unaware of the plan and surprised when Ricablanca placed money on her lap prior to arrest. Anita Valencia offered a similar narrative of surprise and lack of knowledge of Baby Aquino’s residence. Generoso Capitle, called hostile, claimed an unknown woman brought him the check for rediscount and that he could not locate her after the check bounced.
Legal Issue: Value of the Thing Taken
The Court identified as central whether the personal property taken had value such that the crime of theft was produced. The Court observed that under Article 308 and the value-dependent penalties in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, a theft must involve property that has some value. The subject check had been dishonored and therefore, as proven in the record, lacked value at the time relevant to consummation of the offense.
Application of the Doctrine of the Impossible Crime
The Court applied the doctrine articulated in Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992, and analyzed Article 4(2) and Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court explained the requisites of an impossible crime: an act that would be an offense against persons or property, done with evil intent, and inherently impossible to accomplish or effected by means inadequate or ineffectual. The Court found factual impossibility analogous to the example in Intod where an attempt to take property fails because the pocket is empty.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that petitioner performed the acts necessary to consummate theft by taking possession of the check. Petitioner’s intent to gain was manifest from the unlawful taking and conduct. Nonetheless, the dishonor of the check rendered the thing taken absolutely worthless. The Court held that the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, unknown to petitioner, prevented production of the crime of qualified theft. The Court further explained that petitioner’s subsequent receipt of marked cash during the entrapment did not supply value retroactively to the earlier taking and at most corroborated intent. The Court also observed that the plan to obtain replacement cash was a separate fraudulent scheme not alleged in the information, and prosecuting petitioner for that scheme would contravene the due process clause of the 1987 Constitution.
Precedents Considered
The Court relied on Intod v. Court of Appeals for the doctrine of impossible crimes and on Valenzuela v. Peop
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 162540)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Gemma T. Jacinto was the petitioner and one of three accused in a criminal information for Qualified Theft filed before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131.
- People of the Philippines prosecuted the case alleging that the accused, who were employees of Mega Foam Int'l., Inc., conspired to misappropriate a customer check for P10,000.
- The RTC rendered judgment finding the three accused guilty of Qualified Theft and imposed a term of imprisonment ranging from five years, five months and eleven days to six years, eight months and twenty days.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification by reducing the sentence of Anita Valencia and acquitting Jacqueline Capitle while maintaining petitioner Jacinto's sentence.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the CA Decision and the denial of her motion for reconsideration.
Key Factual Allegations
- Baby Aquino handed BDO Check No. 0132649 postdated July 14, 1997 in the amount of P10,000 to petitioner as payment for purchases from Mega Foam Int'l., Inc..
- The subject check was deposited in the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, husband of Jacqueline Capitle, and the check was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank.
- Rowena Ricablanca received information about the dishonored check and coordinated with NBI and Mega Foam's owner, Joseph Dyhengco, for an entrapment operation using ten marked P1,000 bills.
- Petitioner delivered the bounced check to Ricablanca and later accepted a P5,000 share of the marked money that Ricablanca presented as a supposed cash replacement for the dishonored check.
- NBI agents observed the transaction and arrested petitioner and Anita Valencia, and forensic analysis found fluorescent powder on the hands of petitioner and Valencia.
- Company records showed that petitioner never remitted the subject check to Mega Foam, while Baby Aquino later paid Mega Foam P10,000 in cash as replacement for the dishonored check.
- Generoso Capitle testified as a hostile witness that an unknown woman gave him the check for rediscounting and that he thereafter deposited it in his account.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner may be convicted of a crime not charged in the information.
- Whether a worthless or dishonored check can constitute the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether the prosecution proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory Framework
- Article 308, Revised Penal Code defines theft as the taking of personal property of another without the latter's consent with intent to gain.
- Article 310, Revised Penal Code prescribes Qualified Theft where taking is aggravated by grave abuse of confidence or other circumstances.
- Article 4(2), Revised Penal Code establishes criminal responsibility for acts which would be offenses but for inherent impossibility or the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- Article 59, Revised Penal