Jacinto v People, 592 SCRA 426

G.R. NO. 162540

Facts: Petitioner had been convicted of qualified theft and is now seeking for a reversal
of the decision. Jacinto along with Valencia and Capitle was charged with qualified theft
for having stolen and deposited a check with an amount of P10,000.00. Such check was
issued by Baby Aquino for payment of her purchases from Mega Foam, but the check
bounced. Dyhengco found out about the theft and filed a complaint with the NBI. An
entrapment operation was conducted, with the use of marked bills. The entrapment was
a success and the petitioner along with her co-accused was arrested.
Issue: Whether this can constitute as an impossible crime and not as qualified theft
Held: This constitutes as an impossible crime. The requisite of an impossible crime are:
1. that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property (all acts to
consummate the crime of qualified theft was consummated – crime against property).
2. that the act was done with evil intent (mere act of unlawful taking showed intent to gain)
3. that its accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual – or the extraneous circumstance that constituted it as a factual
impossibility (the fact that the check bounced)
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount
to a crime. (Impossibility of killing a dead person)
Factual impossibility – when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond
his control prevent consummation of the intended crime. (Like the example in the case
of Intod: a man puts his hand on the coat pocket of another with intent to steal but gets
nothing since the pocket is empty)
From the time the 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. Replacement for the check was no longer necessary for
the consummation of the crime since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense,
petitioners act of receiving the cash replacement should not be considered as a
continuation of the theft. The fact that the petitioner was caught receiving the marked
money was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen proof of her intent to gain.