Jacinto vs. People

A worthless, dishonored check cannot be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code because theft requires the taking of property with some value; where the object is absolutely valueless due to factual circumstances unknown to the accused, the act constitutes an impossible crime under Article 4(2) and Article 59 of the RPC, not theft.

Petitioner was employed as a collector for Mega Foam International Inc., entrusted with receiving payments from customers. In June 1997, she received a postdated check from customer Baby Aquino as payment for goods, but failed to remit it to the company. The check was deposited in an account belonging to her brother-in-law but was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank, rendering it valueless.

• Filed before RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 131; Information charged petitioner and two co-accused with Qualified Theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 310 of the RPC
• RTC Decision (October 4, 1999): Found all three accused guilty of Qualified Theft; sentenced to imprisonment of 5 years, 5 months and 11 days (minimum) to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days (maximum)
• Appealed to CA
• CA Decision (December 16, 2003): Modified RTC decision; affirmed petitioner's conviction for Qualified Theft, reduced co-accused Valencia's sentence to 4 months arresto mayor, acquitted co-accused Jacqueline Capitle
• Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (partial, as to her alone): Denied by CA Resolution dated March 5, 2004
• Elevated to SC via Petition for Review on Certiorari

• Petitioner served as collector for Mega Foam until June 30, 1997, with free access to the establishment and grave abuse of confidence reposed in her
• June 1997: Baby Aquino (customer) delivered to petitioner Banco De Oro Check No. 0132649, postdated July 14, 1997, for P10,000.00 as payment for her purchases from Mega Foam
• Petitioner never remitted the check to Mega Foam; instead, the check was deposited in the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle (husband of petitioner's sister and co-accused Jacqueline Capitle)
• July 1997: The check was dishonored for lack of funds
• Rowena Ricablanca (Mega Foam employee) received calls from a Land Bank employee regarding the bounced check and from another customer about irregular payment instructions allegedly given by Jacqueline Capitle
• Ricablanca reported to company owner Joseph Dyhengco; Baby Aquino confirmed giving the check to petitioner and later paid P10,000.00 cash to Mega Foam as replacement for the dishonored check
• NBI entrapment operation: Dyhengco provided marked money (ten P1,000 bills dusted with fluorescent powder) to Ricablanca
• August 21, 1997: Ricablanca met with petitioner and co-accused Valencia; they proceeded to Baby Aquino's factory where Ricablanca pretended to obtain cash replacement, then divided the marked money, giving P5,000.00 each to petitioner and Valencia
• NBI agents arrested petitioner and Valencia; forensic examination revealed fluorescent powder on their hands
• Jacqueline Capitle was subsequently identified as "Jane Doe" in the Information

• The taking of a worthless, dishonored check cannot legally constitute the crime of qualified theft because the object lacked value, an essential element for theft under Articles 308 and 309 of the RPC
• Conviction for an impossible crime not alleged in the Information violates due process and the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
• The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for qualified theft because the check had no value at the time material to the charge

• All elements of qualified theft were established: (1) unlawful taking of personal property; (2) belonging to Mega Foam; (3) with intent to gain evidenced by the deposit into a relative's account; (4) without owner's consent; (5) without violence; and (6) with grave abuse of confidence arising from petitioner's position as collector
• The check had value when taken (being a postdated negotiable instrument expected to be funded) and only became worthless due to subsequent dishonor, which does not negate the consummation of theft
• The entrapment operation demonstrating petitioner's acceptance of the marked money as "replacement" for the check proves her intent to gain and completes the crime

• Procedural Issues: Whether the petitioner can be convicted of an impossible crime when the Information charged qualified theft
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a worthless/dishonored check can be the object of theft
  • Whether the taking of a dishonored check constitutes an impossible crime under Article 4(2) of the RPC

• Procedural: Yes. Conviction for an impossible crime when the Information charges qualified theft does not violate due process where the impossible crime is a lesser offense and the factual allegations support it; however, the SC noted that a separate fraudulent scheme to obtain cash replacement (not alleged in the Information) could not be the basis for conviction without offending due process
• Substantive:
  • No. A worthless check cannot be the object of theft. Under Article 309, the penalty for theft depends on the value of the thing stolen, implying the property must possess some value. The intention to gain cannot be realized if the object has absolutely no value.
  • Yes. The act constitutes an impossible crime under Article 4(2) in relation to Article 59 of the RPC. Petitioner performed all acts to consummate theft with evil intent, but factual impossibility (the check being unfunded—an extraneous circumstance unknown to her at the time) prevented the crime's production. This is analogous to the Intod doctrine of pickpocketing an empty pocket.

• Impossible Crime (Article 4(2) and Article 59, RPC) — An act which would be an offense against persons or property but for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate/ineffectual means. Requisites: (1) act would be an offense against persons or property; (2) done with evil intent; (3) accomplishment inherently impossible OR means employed inadequate/ineffectual.
• Factual Impossibility: Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent consummation (e.g., stealing from an empty pocket, shooting at an absent victim).
• Legal Impossibility: Intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
• Theft (Article 308, RPC) / Unlawful Taking (Apoderamiento) — The felony is consummated upon the deprivation of the owner's property through taking without consent; unlawful taking is complete from the moment the offender gains possession, even without opportunity to dispose of the object. However, the object must have value to constitute theft.
• Factual Impossibility in Theft — Where the thing taken turns out to be absolutely valueless (e.g., a dishonored check), the crime is not theft but an impossible crime, as the means employed (taking a worthless instrument) is ineffectual to produce the desired result (gain).

• "The personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of the thing stolen."
• "Herein petitioner's case is closely akin to the above example of factual impossibility given in Intod... 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."
• "Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one's personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage... [but] the thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless."

• Intod v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992) — Controlling precedent establishing the doctrine of impossible crimes; distinguished between factual and legal impossibility; provided the analogy of pickpocketing an empty pocket as factual impossibility which the SC applied to the taking of a worthless check.
• Valenzuela v. People (G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007) — Cited for the definition of theft under Article 308; clarified that theft is "produced" upon the unlawful taking without consent, and that unlawful taking is complete upon gaining possession regardless of ability to dispose of the property.

• Article 308, Revised Penal Code (Definition of Theft) — Defines theft as the taking of personal property of another without the latter's consent, with intent to gain; cited to establish that theft requires an object of value.
• Article 309, Revised Penal Code (Penalties for Theft) — Cited to demonstrate that the graduated penalties for theft depend on the value of the thing stolen, reinforcing the requirement that the object must possess value.
• Article 310, Revised Penal Code (Qualified Theft) — Defines theft committed with grave abuse of confidence; the charged offense.
• Article 4(2), Revised Penal Code (Impossible Crime) — Defines criminal responsibility for acts which would be offenses but for inherent impossibility or ineffectual means; basis for the modified conviction.
• Article 59, Revised Penal Code (Penalty for Impossible Crime) — Provides the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos for impossible crimes.

• N/A (Ynares-Santiago, C.J., Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., and Nachura, JJ., concurred without separate opinions)