Está en la página 1de 2

Case: Jacinto vs.

People 592 SCRA 426

G.R. No.: 162540

This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the CA which
affirmed the ruling of the RTC which convicted the herein petitioner for qualified theft. In the
June 1997, Isabelita Aquino Milabo, also known as Baby Aquino, handed the herein petitioner
Jacinto a BDO postdated check with the amount of Php.10 000 as a payment for the purchases
that Baby Aquino made from Mega Foam Int’l., Inc. The petitioner was then the collector of the
said company. Somehow, the check was deposited in the Land Bank account of Generoso
Capitle,the husband of Jacqueline Capitle. Jacqueline Capitle is the sister of the petitioner and
the former pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of the aforementioned company.

Meanwhile, Rowena Ricablanca, an employee of Mega Foam received a phone call from
Land Bank, Valenzuela Branch, who was looking for Generoso Capitle in order to inform him that
the BDO deposited in his account had been dishonored. Thereafter, Ricablanca called Anita
Valencia, a former employee/collector of Mega Foam and told her of the news. Eventually,
Valencia instructed Ricablanca to ask Aquino to replace the check with cash. Also, Ricablanca was
told of the plan to divide the money equally into four: for Valencia, Ricablanca, Jacinto
(petitioner), and Jacqueline Capitle. Upon advice of the Mega Foam’s accountant, Ricablanca
reported the matter to Joseph Dyhengco, the owner of Mega Foam. After verification from Baby
Aquino and company records, it was discovered that the petitioner never remitted the check to
Mega Foam. Hence, Dyhenco filed a complaint in the NBI and an entrapment operation of its
agents was worked out. Jacinto, Valencia, and Capitle were arrested. The NBI filed a criminal case
of qualified theft.

The RTC convicted the accused/herein petitioner of qualified theft. CA modified the
decision of the RTC: acquitting Capitle, reducing the penalty of Valencia, and retaining the penalty
of the herein petitioner Jacinto.


Whether or not the accused/herein petitioner committed qualified theft?


No, the herein petitioner did not commit qualified theft. The Revised Penal Code provides that
the personal property subject of the theft must have some values, as the intention of the accused
is to gain from the thing stolen. Moreover, Art. 309 of the same code denotes that the penalty
imposed on the accused is dependent on the thing stolen. In the case at bar, the herein petitioner
should have committed qualified theft if not for the unfunded check giving the said felony
inherent impossibility of accomplishment as provided in Article 4 (2) of the RPC. For this reason,
the petition is granted and the decision of the CA is modified convicting the herein petitioner
Jacinto with impossible crime with a penalty of 6 months arresto mayor and to pay to costs.