1. Gemma Jacinto vs.

People

GEMMA T. JACINTO vs PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES (GR No. 162540, July
13, 2009)
SEPTEMBER 9, 2016 / RUSSELL JAY
Subject: Criminal Law 1- Impossible Crimes
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
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 petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.

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.

2. Tabaniag vs. People

Ponente: J. Peralta
 Facts: Complainants, are engaged in part-time jewelry business
while Petitioner is an agent who sells the pieces of jewelry of complainants on
commission basis. On February 7, 1992, petitioner received from Victoria several
pieces of jewelry amounting to Php106,000.00 as evidenced by a trust receipt signed
by petitioner. Later on February 16, 1992, petitioner again received several pieces
of jewelry amounting to Php64,515.00 as evidenced by another trust receipt signed
by petitioner.

Weeks after, Victoria alleged that she made several verbal demands to
petitioner to return the pieces of jewelry but to no avail. They then charged
petitioner, Bisquera and Olandia of estafa and violations of BP 22. Petitioner, in her
defense, alleged that she entrusted the pieces of jewelry to Bisquera who issued
Security Bank Checks as payment. Petitioner claimed that Victoria knew that she
was planning to sell the pieces of jewelry to Bisquera. Moreover, petitioner contends
that she and Olandia delivered the said Security Bank checks to Victoria, who then
deposited the same to her account. The checks issued by Bisquera bounced as the
accounts were closed and thus Victoria asked petitioner to do something about
it. Petitioner claimed that she filed cases for estafa and violation of BP 22 against
Bisquera.

Issue: Whether petitioner had misappropriated or converted the pieces of jewelry

entrusted to her by Victoria.

Ruling: No. Similarly, it cannot be said that petitioner misappropriated the jewelry or delivered
them to Labrador without right. Aside from the fact that no condition or limitation was imposed
on the mode or manner by which petitioner was to effect the sale, it is also consistent with usual
practice for the seller to necessarily part with the valuables in order to find a buyer and allow
inspection of the items for sale.

3. People vs. Nelmida

4. People vs. Dillatan St
5. Effect of Probation
6. People vs. Lim