Impossible crime

Facts: Jacinto worked as collector for Mega Foam International, Inc. In 1997, she did not remit to her employer the check issued by the latter’s customer and, instead, deposited it to the bank account of her brother-in-law. The check, however, bounced. The RTC and CA held Jacinto guilty of the crime of qualified theft.

ISSUE: What crime was committed?

HELD: Jacinto committed an impossible crime. As may be gleaned from Articles 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored.

What Jacinto committed was an impossible crime, defined and penalized under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: "Art. 4. Criminal Responsibility. – Criminal responsibility shall be incurred: x x x 2. 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 or ineffectual means." All the requisites are present in this case: (1) Jacinto performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property; (2) Jacinto’s evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for her employer showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched; and (3) The crime of qualified theft was not produced because of the extraneous circumstance that the check was unfunded and was subsequently dishonored.