Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 278 views

    Jacinto vs. People Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Claribel Domingo Bayani
    The petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto and two others were charged with qualified theft for depositing a customer's check into the account of one of the accused's husband. The check was later dishonored. The issue is whether this constitutes an impossible crime. The Supreme Court held that it was an impossible crime since the theft could not be accomplished once the check was dishonored. For a crime to be impossible, the act must be intended to be an offense but inherently impossible to accomplish, or the means used were inadequate or ineffectual. Here, the theft was impossible once the check bounced. However, the plan to replace the check with cash was a separate fraudulent scheme that should have been included in the charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jacinto vs. People Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Claribel Domingo Bayani
    278 views2 pages
    The petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto and two others were charged with qualified theft for depositing a customer's check into the account of one of the accused's husband. The check was later dishonored. The issue is whether this constitutes an impossible crime. The Supreme Court held that it was an impossible crime since the theft could not be accomplished once the check was dishonored. For a crime to be impossible, the act must be intended to be an offense but inherently impossible to accomplish, or the means used were inadequate or ineffectual. Here, the theft was impossible once the check bounced. However, the plan to replace the check with cash was a separate fraudulent scheme that should have been included in the charges.

    Original Title

    36.-JACINTO-VS.-PEOPLE-CASE-DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto and two others were charged with qualified theft for depositing a customer's check into the account of one of the accused's husband. The check was later dishonored. The issue is whether this constitutes an impossible crime. The Supreme Court held that it was an impossible crime since the theft could not be accomplished once the check was dishonored. For a crime to be impossible, the act must be intended to be an offense but inherently impossible to accomplish, or the means used were inadequate or ineffectual. Here, the theft was impossible once the check bounced. However, the plan to replace the check with cash was a separate fraudulent scheme that should have been included in the charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    278 views2 pages

    Jacinto vs. People Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Claribel Domingo Bayani
    The petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto and two others were charged with qualified theft for depositing a customer's check into the account of one of the accused's husband. The check was later dishonored. The issue is whether this constitutes an impossible crime. The Supreme Court held that it was an impossible crime since the theft could not be accomplished once the check was dishonored. For a crime to be impossible, the act must be intended to be an offense but inherently impossible to accomplish, or the means used were inadequate or ineffectual. Here, the theft was impossible once the check bounced. However, the plan to replace the check with cash was a separate fraudulent scheme that should have been included in the charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GEMMA T. JACINTO vs.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009

    Facts:

    The case is about the petitioner and two other women charged with the RTC with the
    crime of Qualified Theft. The accused conspiring with the other being then all employees of
    Mega Foam International Inc., with the intent to gain willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
    steal and deposited in their own account, BDO Check No. 0132649 amounting to ₱10,000.00,
    representing payment made by customer Baby Aquino to the Mega Foam Int'l. Inc. handed to the
    petitioner, the collector of Mega Foam. The check was deposited in the account of Generoso
    Capitle, the husband of Jacqueline Capitle; the latter is the sister of petitioner and the former
    pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of Mega Foam. Meanwhile, Rowena Ricablanca,
    another employee of Mega Foam, received a phone call from an employee of the bank where the
    check was deposited and was looking for Generoso Capitle and informed that the check
    deposited in his account had been dishonored. Ricablanca then phoned accused Anita Valencia, a
    former employee/collector of Mega Foam, asking the latter to inform Jacqueline Capitle about
    the phone call from the bank regarding the bounced check. Valencia instructed Ricablanca to ask
    Baby Aquino to replace the check with cash and told of a plan to take the cash and divide it
    equally into four: for herself, Ricablanca, petitioner Jacinto and Jacqueline Capitle.

    The owner of Mega Foam filed a complaint with the NBI and worked out an entrapment
    operation with its agents and Ricablanca was tasked to pretend that she was going along with
    Valencia's plan. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were arrested. The NBI filed a criminal case
    for qualified theft against the two and Jacqueline Capitle.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the crime committed falls the definition of Impossible Crime

    Held:

    Yes, 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. The aspect of the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the intended crime under
    Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently
    impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b)
    ineffectual.

    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 (since the check was dishonored or bounced). The court stated that
    crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioner's act of receiving the cash replacement
    should not be considered as a continuation of the theft and the fact that petitioner was caught
    receiving the marked money was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen proof of her intent
    to gain.

    The fact that petitioner further planned to have the dishonored check replaced with cash
    by its issuer is a different and separate fraudulent scheme and it should be included and covered
    by the allegations in the information as basis and in order the court can pronounce judgement on
    the accused, and avoid to violate the due process clause of the Constitution. The petition is
    granted and the decision of CA is modified, guilty of an impossible crime.

    You might also like