GEMMA T. JACINTO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (GR No.

162540, July 13, 2009)

Subject: Criminal Law 1- Impossible Crimes

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.
NORBERTO CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014)

Laws Applicable: RPC Art. 6

FACTS: In December 1993, Norberto Cruz (Norberto) and his wife went to La Union to sell plastic and
glass wares. Along with them is AAA and BBB. Upon reaching their destination, they set up a tent in
order that they will have a place to sleep.
At around 1 AM, AAA was awakened when she felt that somebody was on top of her. The person was
Norberto who was mashing her breast and touching her private parts. He fought back and kicked
Norberto twice. He was not able to pursue his lustful desires; he offered AAA money and told her not to
tell the incident to her mother. Thirty minutes later, when AAA returned to her tent, she again saw
Norberto touching private parts of BBB.
RTC found Norberto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of ATTEMPTED RAPE and ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS. CA promulgated its decision affirming the conviction of the petitioner for attempted
rape in Criminal Case No. 2388, but acquitting him of the acts of lasciviousness.

ISSUE: WON accused was guilty of attempted rape.

RULING: NO. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts
of execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should
produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to
have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with
the female.
The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is committed.
The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from his own
declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts directly leading to rape. In People v. Bugarin, the
Court said that the accused was held liable only for acts of lasciviousness because the intent to commit
rape “is not apparent from the act described,” and the intent to have sexual intercourse with her was
not inferable from the act of licking her genitalia.
The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her genitalia with his hands
and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on
her. It is obvious that the fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is
the offender’s intent to lie with the female.
The Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES petitioner NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOME guilty of ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS.