G.R. No. 162540 - Jacinto vs. People

Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto, along with two co-accused, was charged with Qualified Theft in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City.
The charge stemmed from an incident in July 1997, where the accused allegedly conspired to steal a postdated check worth P10,000.00 from Mega Foam International Inc.
The check was issued by customer Baby Aquino as payment for her purchases, which the accused failed to remit to their employer.

The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Jacinto, as a collector for Mega Foam, received the check but did not remit it.
The check was deposited into the account of Generoso Capitle, the husband of co-accused Jacqueline Capitle.
Testimonies revealed that the check was dishonored, leading to a series of communications among employees regarding its status.
An entrapment operation was conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), resulting in Jacinto's arrest while attempting to receive cash as a replacement for the dishonored check.

The defense denied the allegations, asserting that Jacinto had stopped collecting payments from Baby Aquino prior to her resignation.
Jacinto claimed she was unaware of any wrongdoing and was surprised when arrested.
Co-accused Valencia also denied involvement in the theft, stating she was merely accompanying Ricablanca to Baby Aquino's house.

On October 4, 1999, the RTC found all three accused guilty of Qualified Theft, sentencing them to imprisonment.
The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the sentences for the co-accused but upheld Jacinto's conviction.

Jacinto's petition for review raised three main issues:
1. Whether she could be convicted of a crime not charged in the information.
2. Whether a worthless check could be the object of theft.
3. Whether the prosecution proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The elements of Qualified Theft were analyzed, including the unlawful taking of personal property, intent to gain, and lack of consent from the owner.
The court noted that the check, although unlawfully taken, was ultimately worthless as it was dishonored, raising questions about the actual commission of theft.

The court referenced the case of Intod v. Court of Appeals, which established the concept of impossible crimes.
It was determined that Jacinto's actions constituted an impossible crime because the check she intended to steal was worthless at the time of the act.
The court emphasized that the crime of theft requires the property to have value, which was absent in this case.

The court concluded that while Jacinto had the intent to commit theft, the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime du...continue reading