The taking of a worthless check, even with intent to gain and grave abuse of confidence, constitutes an impossible crime under Article 4, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code, because the inherent lack of value in the check at the time of taking makes the consummation of theft factually impossible.

The case originated from an employer-employee relationship where the petitioner, a collector for Mega Foam International Inc., was entrusted with receiving payments from customers. The dispute arose when a check payment collected by the petitioner was not remitted to the company but was instead deposited into an account linked to her family and was subsequently dishonored, leading to accusations of theft with grave abuse of confidence.

• In June 1997, Isabelita "Baby" Aquino handed petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto, then a collector for Mega Foam International Inc., a Banco De Oro (BDO) Check No. 0132649 postdated July 14, 1997, for P10,000.00 as payment for purchases.
• The check was deposited into the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, husband of Jacqueline Capitle (petitioner's sister and former Mega Foam employee), instead of being remitted to Mega Foam.
• Rowena Ricablanca, another Mega Foam employee, received a call from Land Bank informing her that the BDO check deposited in Generoso Capitle's account had been dishonored.
• Ricablanca was told by Anita Valencia (a former Mega Foam employee) that the check was from Baby Aquino and Valencia proposed a plan to get cash from Baby Aquino to replace the bounced check and divide it among herself, Ricablanca, petitioner Jacinto, and Jacqueline Capitle.
• Ricablanca reported the matter to Joseph Dyhengco, owner of Mega Foam. Dyhengco confirmed with Baby Aquino that she had given the check to petitioner.
• Petitioner called Baby Aquino in July 1997, informing her that the BDO check bounced. Baby Aquino later paid Mega Foam P10,000.00 in cash in August 1997 as replacement.
• Dyhengco filed a complaint with the NBI and an entrapment operation was planned. Marked money was given to Ricablanca.
• On August 21, 2007 (typographical error in decision, should be 1997), petitioner, her husband, Ricablanca, and Valencia went to Baby Aquino's factory. Ricablanca pretended to get cash from Baby Aquino but used the marked money.
• Ricablanca gave P5,000.00 each to petitioner and Valencia. NBI agents then arrested petitioner and Valencia, who tested positive for fluorescent powder.
• Petitioner admitted being a collector for Mega Foam until June 30, 1997, but denied taking the check and claimed she was merely accompanying Ricablanca on the day of the arrest.

• Petitioner argued that she cannot be convicted of a crime not charged in the information, possibly referring to any implications from the entrapment operation for a different offense.
• Petitioner contended that a worthless check cannot be the object of theft.
• Petitioner asserted that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Qualified Theft.

• The prosecution argued that all elements of qualified theft were present: (1) taking of personal property (the check), (2) belonging to another (Mega Foam/Baby Aquino), (3) with intent to gain (presumed from unlawful taking and deposit to brother-in-law's account), (4) without the owner's consent (failure to remit), (5) without violence or intimidation, and (6) with grave abuse of confidence (petitioner was a collector).
• The prosecution presented evidence of the non-remittance of the check, its deposit into a third-party account connected to the petitioner, and the subsequent dishonor, followed by an entrapment operation where petitioner received marked money intended as replacement for the bounced check.

• Whether or not the petitioner can be convicted of qualified theft when the object of the alleged theft, a check, was subsequently dishonored and thus worthless.
• Whether or not the crime of qualified theft was consummated.
• Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of an impossible crime.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is guilty of an Impossible Crime, not Qualified Theft.
• The Court reasoned that for theft to be committed, the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen, and the penalty depends on the value of the thing stolen (Article 309, RPC).
• In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check, but it was subsequently dishonored, rendering it worthless. Therefore, the crime of qualified theft was not produced due to factual impossibility.
• Petitioner performed all acts to consummate qualified theft (taking with intent to gain and abuse of confidence). However, the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded (a fact unknown to petitioner at the time of taking) prevented the crime from being produced.
• The Court likened this to the example of factual impossibility where one puts a hand in another's empty pocket intending to steal a wallet.
• The subsequent entrapment involving the P5,000.00 marked money was not part of the consummation of the theft of the check, as theft is not a continuing offense. The plan to replace the check with cash was a separate scheme.
• The Court modified the CA Decision, finding petitioner guilty of an impossible crime under Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced her to six (6) months of arresto mayor.

• Impossible Crime (Article 4, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code) — Criminal responsibility is incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. This was applied because petitioner's act of taking the check, intended as theft, could not be consummated because the check was worthless (due to being dishonored), an extraneous circumstance representing factual impossibility.
• Penalty for Impossible Crime (Article 59, Revised Penal Code) — When an intended offense is not produced due to impossible accomplishment or inadequate means, the court shall impose the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine. This was applied to determine the penalty for petitioner's commission of an impossible crime.
• Elements of Theft (Article 308, Revised Penal Code) — Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. The Court acknowledged petitioner performed acts of taking with intent to gain, but the "property" (the check) proved valueless, preventing consummation.
• Value of Property in Theft (Article 309, Revised Penal Code) — The penalty for theft is dependent on the value of the thing stolen. This provision bolstered the argument that if the thing stolen has no value (like a dishonored check), the crime of theft cannot be produced as intended, leading to the consideration of an impossible crime.
• Factual Impossibility — Occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. This was applied because the check's lack of funds was an extraneous fact, unknown to the petitioner at the moment of taking, which prevented her from gaining any value from it, thus making the consummation of theft impossible.
• Consummation of Theft — Theft is produced upon the unlawful taking (apoderamiento) of personal property of another with intent to gain, even if the offender has no opportunity to dispose of the same. The Court clarified that while the "taking" of the check occurred, the worthlessness of the check meant the intended crime of theft (which implies obtaining something of value) was not produced.

• "In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced."
• "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."
• "From the above discussion, there can be no question that as of the time that 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."

• Intod v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992, 215 SCRA 52) — Cited as highly instructive and applicable. In Intod, the accused was found guilty of an impossible crime (attempted murder) due to factual impossibility (intended victim was not home). This case was used to explain legal and factual impossibility, with the current case being akin to factual impossibility (taking a worthless item).
• Valenzuela v. People (G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, 525 SCRA 306) — Cited for the principle that in theft, the "taking" (apoderamiento) is the single operative act of execution, and theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain, regardless of the offender's ability to dispose of it. The current case distinguished itself by focusing on the worthlessness of the item taken, preventing the intended gain.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 308 (Who are liable for theft) — Defines the crime of theft and its elements. Referenced to establish the intended crime petitioner set out to commit.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 310 (Qualified theft) — Defines qualified theft, committed if theft is done with grave abuse of confidence. Referenced as the crime petitioner was charged with and initially convicted of.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 309 (Penalties [for theft]) — States that the penalty for theft depends on the value of the thing stolen. Referenced to support the argument that a worthless item cannot be the subject of consummated theft that results in a penalty based on value.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 4, paragraph 2 (Criminal Responsibility - Impossible Crime) — Defines an impossible crime as an act that would be an offense against persons or property if not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or the use of inadequate/ineffectual means. This was the provision under which petitioner was ultimately found guilty.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 59 (Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible) — Specifies the penalty for an impossible crime (arresto mayor or a fine). This provision was applied to sentence the petitioner.