7/25/2019 Jacinto v. People (Qualified Theft)

1/2

Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 (Art. 30! "uali#ie$ t%e#t&

'A)*+

Gemma Jacinto and two other women (Valencia, Capitle) were charged with Qualified

Theft.Jacinto as the collector of Mega Foam nt!l, nc, recei"ed a #$% chec& worth ',

rom sa*elita +#a*- /uino Mila*o as pament of the latter!s purchase from Mega

Foam. 0owe"er, the said chec& was deposited in the 1and #an& account of Generoso

Capitle, hus*and of Jac/ueline Capitle who is the sister of Jacinto and the former pricing

merchandising and in"entr cler& of Mega Foam. The chec& was dishonored * 1#'.

pparentl, Jacinto, who told #a* that the chec& *ounced, ne"er remitted the said #$%

chec& to Mega Foam. lso, #a* had paid 2 cash to replace the dishonored chec&.

There was a plan among nita Valencia (former emploee), Jacinto, 3owena 3ica*lanca

(emploee), and Jac/ueline Capitle to ta&e the 2 cash and di"ide it among the four of

them.Joseph $hengco, Mega Foam owner, filed complaint with the 4# and an entrapment

operation was conducted with 3ica*lanca holding the '2 mar&ed mone, pretending

that she was going along with Valencia!s plan. Jacinto and Valencia were arrested since

Capitle did not appear on the agreed date. Jacinto and Valencia recei"ed 52 each of the

mar&ed mone, which accused women as&ed from #a* /uino as cash replacement of

the dishonored chec&.

**-+

6hether or not a worthless chec& can *e the o*7ect of theft.

R-/NG+

4o. worthless chec& cannot *e the o*7ect of theft. Jacinto is guilt of impossi*le crime

and sentence to 8 months of arresto maor.

The following are the elements of /ualified theft defined under rticle 9:, in relation to

rticle 9, 3'C;

() The ta&ing of propertaid propert *elonged to anotherhe would ha"e recei"ed the face "alue of

the chec& if it weren!t dishonored. Therefore, it was duet to eAtraneous circumstance of the chec&

*eing unfunded B thus the chec& *eing worthless, a fact un&nown to her, that pre"ented the crime

from *eing produced.

Further, as of the time she too& possession of the chec&, she had performed all the acts to

consummate the crime of theft, had it not *een impossi*le of accomplishment. The circumstance

of her recei"ing the 52 as supposed replacement for the dishonored chec& was no longer

necessar for the consummation of the /ualified theft. Qualified theft is not a continuing crime,

hence, the receipt * petitioner of the mar&ed mone as cash replacement of the worthless chec&

should not *e considered as a continuation of the theft. The receipt of the mar&ed mone was

merel corro*orating e"idence strengthening proof of her intent to gain.