View full case

GEMMA T. JACINTO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

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 theft of a bank check belonging to Mega Foam International Inc., where all three accused were employees. The check, amounting to P10,000, was given by a customer to petitioner as payment for purchases. However, the check was deposited in the bank account of Capitle's husband instead of Mega Foam's account. Ricablanca, another employee, received a phone call revealing the dishonored check and discussed the issue with Valencia. Valencia instructed Ricablanca to ask the customer to replace the check with cash and proposed to divide the cash equally among themselves and Capitle. Ricablanca reported the matter to the owner of Mega Foam, leading to an entrapment operation conducted by the NBI. In the operation, marked money was given to Ricablanca, who met with petitioner. The marked money was divided among Ricablanca, petitioner, and Valencia, after which they were arrested by NBI agents. The defense denied involvement in the theft and presented a different scenario. The RTC found all three accused guilty of qualified theft.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of a crime not charged in the information;

  2. Whether or not a worthless check can be the object of theft;

  3. Whether or not the prosecution has proved petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner committed an impossible crime.

  5. Whether or not the petitioner's subsequent act of receiving cash as a replacement for the dishonored check should be considered as a continuation of the theft.

RULING:

  1. The Court resolves the issues as follows:

  2. The Court finds merit in the first issue raised. The crime of qualified theft was not charged in the information, and therefore, petitioner cannot be convicted of a crime not included in the information. The rule is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the complaint or information, unless there is an amendment of the complaint or information in accordance with the rules.

  3. The Court agrees with the petitioner that a worthless check cannot be the object of theft. The crime of qualified theft requires that the personal property taken must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner took a postdated check belonging to her employer, but the check was subsequently dishonored, rendering it without value. Therefore, the crime of qualified theft was not actually produced.

  4. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While it was established that petitioner did not remit the customer's check payment to her employer and instead appropriated it for herself, the prosecution failed to prove the essential element that the property taken had some value, as the check was dishonored. Moreover, the prosecution did not establish that petitioner had the intent to gain from the thing stolen.

  5. The Court held that the petitioner committed an impossible crime. 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. In this case, the petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft, but its accomplishment was rendered impossible because the check she unlawfully took turned out to be worthless due to it being dishonored. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to the petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced.

  6. The Court ruled that the petitioner's act of receiving cash as a replacement for the dishonored check should not be considered as a continuation of the theft. The crime of theft is not a continuing offense, and the act of receiving the cash replacement should be treated as a separate fraudulent scheme. However, since this scheme was not included or covered by the allegations in the Information, the Court cannot pronounce judgment on the accused for this separate scheme without violating the accused's right to due process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the complaint or information, unless there is an amendment of the complaint or information in accordance with the rules.

  • The crime of qualified theft requires that the personal property taken must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. A worthless check cannot be the object of theft.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • 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.

  • Legal impossibility occurs when the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.

  • Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

  • Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.

  • The crime of theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one's personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage.