Jacinto Vs People Digest

 

JACINTO vs PEOPLE GEMMA JACINTO vs PEOPLE  PEOPLE  G.R. NO. 162540 13July2009 592SCRA26 FACTS: In June 1997, Baby Aquino, handed petitioner -collector of Mega Foam, a post dated checked worth P10,000 as payment for Baby’s purchases from Mega Foam International, Inc. The said check was deposited to the account of Jacqueline Capitle’s husband-Generoso. Rowena Recablanca, another employee of Mega Foam, received a phone call from an employee of Land Bank, who was looking for Generoso to inform Capitle that the BDO check deposited had been dishonored. Thereafter, Joseph Dyhenga talked to Baby to tell that the BDO Check bounced. However, Baby said that she had already paid Mega Foam P10,000 cash in August 1997 as replacement for the dishonored check. Dyhengco filed a compliant with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked out an entrapment operation with its agents. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were arrested. The NBI filed a criminal case for qualified theft against th the e two (2) and Jacqueline Capitle. RTC rendered a decision that Gemma, Anita and Jacqueline GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT and each of the sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Five (5) years, Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days to Six (6) years, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days. ISSUE: Whether ISSUE:  Whether or not the crime committed falls the definition of Impossible Crime. HELD: Yes, Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioner’s act of HELD:  receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as continuation of the Theft. The requisites of an impossible crime are: 1.  That the Act performed would be an offer against persons or property; 2.  That the act was alone with evil intent; and

3.  That the accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual. The time that petitioner took a possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had performed all the acts to consummate that crime of theft had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of an impossible crime and crime and suffer the penalty of Six (6) months of arresto mayor and pay courts. Subject: Criminal Subject:  Criminal Law 1- Impossible Crimes Ponente: Justice Ponente:  Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

 

Doctrine: The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual  ineffectual  FACTS: Petitioner Jacinto was an employee of Megafoam International, received a check amounting to Pho 10, 000 as payment of Baby Aquino to her purchase to Megafoam. However, instead of delivering it to Megafoam, she deposited it to her account. The check was later discovered to be unfunded. Both RTC and CA ruled that the petitioner was guilty of qualified theft. Petitioner filed a petition for review of certiorari to SC.

ISSUE: WON ISSUE:  WON petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING: NO. RULING:  NO. Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only. , The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual. Petitioner’s evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. Petition granted. Decision is MODIFIED. Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arrresto mayor , and to pay the costs.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME - CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY  PROPERTY   GEMMA T. JACINTO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 426 FACTS: Gemma, a collector of Mega Foam, received a P10,000 check from Baby, a client of Mega. Instead of remitting the said collection, she gave the check to Gener, her brother-in-law, the latter deposited it to his bank account, however, the said check was dishonored by the bank due to lack of sufficient funds.

 

  ISSUE: Whether Gemma is criminally liable for qualified theft. HELD: NO. To be liable of the crime of qualified theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of the thing stolen. Since Gemma unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam was subsequently dishonored, the same was apparently without value. Gemma is guilty of impossible crime as defined in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. At the time Gemma took possession of the check of Mega Foam, she had performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft, which is a crime against property, had it not been impossible of accomplishment because it was apparently without value when it was subsequently dishonored.

Jacinto v People  People  Petitioner decision. had been convicted of qualified theft and is now seeking for a reversal of the Facts:   Facts: Jacinto along with Valencia and Capitle was charged with qualified theft for having stole and deposited check with an amount of 10,000 php. Such check was issued by Baby Aquino for payment of her purchases from Mega Foam, but the check bounced. Dyhengco found out about the theft and filed a complaint with the NBI. An entrapment operation was conducted, with the use of marked bills. The entrapment was a success and the petitioner along with her co-accused was arrested. Issue:   Issue: Whether this can constitute as an impossible crime and not as qualified theft Held:   Held: This constitutes as an impossible crime. The requisites of an impossible crime are:1. that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property (all acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft was consummated  –  crime  crime against property)   property) 2. that the act was done with evil intent (mere act of unlawful taking showed intent to gain)  gain)  

 

3. that its accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual –  ineffectual –   or or the extraneous circumstance that constituted it as a factual impossibility (the fact that the check bounced)  bounced)  Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.(Impossibility of killing a dead person) Factual impossibility  –  when  when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent consummation of the intended crime. (Like the t he example in the case of Intod: a man puts his hand on the coat pocket of another with intent to steal but gets nothing since the pocket is empty)  empty)  From the time the petitioner took possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this case. Replacement for the check was no longer necessary for the consummation of the crime since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioners act of receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as a continuation of the theft. The fact that the petitioner was caught receiving the marked money was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen proof of her intent to gain.