SACULO, AIRA KRISTINE S.

CLJ-5 BSCRIM2A
CASE SUMMARY
Make a case summary on the following jurisprudence:

a. Gemma Jacinto v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009) focus on
Impossible Crime
b. People of the Philippines v. Susano Perez (G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949) focus on
Treason

Please be guided by the following instructions:

A. Follow the format:
Case Details (Case Title, G.R. No., Date)
Facts of the Case (Summarize the factual contents)
Issue (Focus on the topic given)
SC Ruling (Summarize the ruling of the Supreme Court to answer the issue raised)
B. AVOID DIGESTING A DIGESTED OUTPUT
CASE DETAILS:
Gemma Jacinto v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Petitioner, together with two other women, was charged with the crime of Qualified Theft,
allegedly committed. In the month of July 1997, the petitioner together with the two other
women mentioned were employees at the Mega Foam International Inc., herein
represented by JOSEPH DYHENGCO Y CO, and as such had free access inside the
aforesaid establishment, with grave abuse of trust and confidence reposed upon them
with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and deposited in their own
account, Banco De Oro Check No. 0132649 dated July 14, 1997 in the sum of
P10,000.00, representing payment made by customer Baby Aquino to the Mega Foam
Int’l. Inc. to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforesaid stated amount of P10,
000.00.

ISSUE:  
Whether or not a worthless check can be the object of theft

SC RULING:
In this case, petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found guilty of an impossible as defined and
penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner
unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was
apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question arises
on whether the crime of qualified theft was actually produced. The Court must resolve
the issue in the negative. Criminal responsibility shall be incurred: By any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate to ineffectual means. Thus, 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.
CASE DETAILS:
People of the Philippines v. Susano Perez G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Seven counts of treason were filed against Susano Perez aka Kid Perez for furnishing
women to the enemies for immoral purpose where the accused, together with the other
Filipinos, for recruiting, apprehending, and commandeering numerous girls and
women against their will for the purpose of using them, as in fact they were
used, to satisfy the immoral purpose and sexual desire of Colonel Mini, and
among such unfortunate victims, were Felina Laput, Eriberta Ramo alias Miami
Ramo, Eduarda Daohog, Eutiquia Lamay, Feliciana Bonalos and Flaviana Bonalos.

Seven counts were alleged in the information but the prosecution offered
evidence only on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, all of which, according to the court,
were substantiated.

Susano Perez alias Kid Perez was convicted of treason by the 5th Division of the
People’s Court sitting in Cebu City and sentenced to death by electrocution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of treason.

SC RULING:
In a broad sense, the law of treason does not prescribe all kinds of social, business and
political intercourse between the belligerent occupants of the invaded country and its
inhabitants. In the nature of things, the occupation of a country by the enemy is bound to
create relations of all sorts between the invaders and the natives. What aid and comfort
constitute treason must depend upon their nature degree and purpose. To draw a line
between treasonable and untreasonable assistance is not always easy.

As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies
must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in
addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies' hostile designs. To make a simple
distinction: To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend or out of charity to the
beneficiary so that he may buy personal necessities is to assist him as individual and is
not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to lend or give him money to enable him to
buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against the giver's country enhance his
strength and by same count injures the interest of the government of the giver. That is
treason.