Worthless Paper or Impossible Crime? Understanding Theft and Dishonored Checks in Philippine Law

TLDR: Can you be guilty of theft for taking a check that turns out to be worthless? This case explores the fascinating intersection of theft and impossible crimes in Philippine law, revealing that intent alone isn’t enough if the stolen item lacks value. Learn why taking a bad check might lead to a lesser charge than qualified theft.

[G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009] GEMMA T. JACINTO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine accepting a check as payment, only to find out it bounces. Frustrating, right? But what if you were accused of theft for taking that very same check, even before it was dishonored? This is the predicament Gemma T. Jacinto faced, highlighting a crucial question in Philippine criminal law: Can a worthless check be the object of theft? The Supreme Court, in this intriguing case, delved into the nuances of theft and “impossible crimes,” offering clarity on when an unlawful act, despite malicious intent, may not constitute the crime originally charged.

Gemma Jacinto, along with two co-accused, was charged with Qualified Theft for allegedly stealing a Banco De Oro check worth P10,000. The twist? This check, intended as payment to their employer, Mega Foam International Inc., was later dishonored. The central legal question became whether Jacinto could be convicted of Qualified Theft when the object of the alleged theft – the check – ultimately held no monetary value.

LEGAL CONTEXT: DELVING INTO THEFT AND IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

To understand this case, we need to unpack two key legal concepts: Qualified Theft and Impossible Crimes under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

Qualified Theft, as defined in Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, elevates simple theft to a more serious offense due to specific circumstances. Article 308 defines theft as committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. Article 310 lists several circumstances that qualify theft, including grave abuse of confidence.

For Qualified Theft to exist, several elements must be present, including the “taking of personal property.” Crucially, this personal property must have value. The intent to gain, a key element of theft, reinforces this requirement – one intends to profit from something valuable. The penalty for theft, as outlined in Article 309, is even graded based on the value of the stolen item, further emphasizing the necessity of value.

Now, let’s consider Impossible Crimes. Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code addresses situations where a crime is not committed due to inherent impossibility or ineffectual means. It states:

“Article 4(2). Criminal Responsibility. – Criminal responsibility shall be incurred: … 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 to ineffectual means.”

This provision, in relation to Article 59 which prescribes a lighter penalty for impossible crimes, recognizes that while criminal intent may be present, if the crime is inherently impossible to accomplish, the penalty should be less severe. The landmark case of Intod v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992) clarified this concept. In Intod, the accused attempted to murder someone who was not home. The Supreme Court ruled that while the intent to kill was clear, the crime of attempted murder was impossible because the intended victim was absent. Intod was convicted of an impossible crime, not attempted murder.

The Intod case distinguished between legal impossibility (where the intended act is not a crime even if completed) and factual impossibility (where extraneous circumstances prevent the crime). Trying to steal from an empty pocket is an example of factual impossibility – the intent to steal is there, but the act is impossible because of an external factor: the absence of property to steal.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE CHECK THAT BOUNCED

The story unfolds with Baby Aquino giving Gemma Jacinto, a collector for Mega Foam, a Banco De Oro check for P10,000 as payment. This check, dated July 14, 1997, was supposed to be deposited into Mega Foam’s account. Instead, it ended up in the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, brother-in-law to Jacinto, and husband of Jacqueline Capitle, another employee. When the check bounced, a Land Bank employee contacted Generoso Capitle.

Rowena Ricablanca, a Mega Foam employee, learned about the dishonored check and informed Anita Valencia, a former employee, who was a neighbor of the Capitles. Valencia, in turn, told Ricablanca about a plan: they would ask Baby Aquino to replace the bounced check with cash, and then divide the cash among themselves, including Jacinto and Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca, upon her accountant’s advice, reported this to Joseph Dyhengco, the owner of Mega Foam.

Dyhengco then coordinated with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to set up an entrapment. Marked money was prepared. Ricablanca, cooperating with the NBI, met with Jacinto. Jacinto handed Ricablanca the bounced check. They planned to get cash from Baby Aquino. On August 21, 2007, Ricablanca, Jacinto, and Valencia went to Baby Aquino’s factory. Ricablanca went inside, supposedly to get cash, but emerged with the marked money from Dyhengco. She gave P5,000 each to Jacinto and Valencia, at which point NBI agents arrested them.

During the trial, Jacinto and Valencia denied the theft, claiming they were merely accompanying Ricablanca. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found them guilty of Qualified Theft. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Jacinto’s conviction but reduced Valencia’s sentence and acquitted Jacqueline Capitle.

Jacinto then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising critical issues:

1. Whether she could be convicted of a crime not charged in the information.
2. Whether a worthless check could be the object of theft.
3. Whether her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court focused on the second issue: the worthlessness of the check. The Court highlighted that for theft, the property taken must have value, aligning with the intent to gain. Referencing Intod, the Court reasoned that Jacinto performed all acts to commit Qualified Theft, but the crime was “impossible of accomplishment” because the check was dishonored and thus, valueless. The Court stated:

“From the above discussion, there can be no question that as of the time that 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.”

The Court emphasized that the subsequent entrapment and receipt of marked money were irrelevant to the theft itself, as theft is consummated upon taking with intent to gain. The plan to replace the check with cash was a separate scheme, not charged in the information.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision regarding Qualified Theft. Instead, Jacinto was found guilty of an Impossible Crime, penalized under Articles 4(2) and 59 of the Revised Penal Code. She received a lighter sentence of six months of arresto mayor.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

The Jacinto case offers crucial insights into the nature of theft and the concept of impossible crimes. It clarifies that for theft to be consummated, the object of the theft must possess value. A dishonored check, being worthless, cannot be the subject of theft in its consummated form.

For Businesses: This ruling underscores the importance of verifying payments, especially checks, promptly. While attempting to deposit a bad check might not constitute theft, other fraudulent schemes related to dishonored checks could still lead to criminal liability, as hinted by the Court regarding Jacinto’s plan to get cash replacement. Businesses should have robust internal controls and due diligence procedures for handling payments and collections.

For Individuals: Be aware that while taking a worthless item might not be theft, the intent behind your actions still matters. Dishonesty, even if it doesn’t amount to the specific crime of theft due to impossibility, can have legal consequences. Furthermore, engaging in elaborate schemes involving worthless checks could expose you to other charges like fraud or estafa, depending on the specifics of the scheme.

Key Lessons from Jacinto v. People:

• Value is Key in Theft: For theft to be consummated, the property taken must have value. A worthless check, like a dishonored one, generally lacks this essential element.
• Intent vs. Accomplishment: Criminal intent alone is not sufficient for a conviction of the intended crime if its accomplishment is inherently impossible. Philippine law recognizes impossible crimes and imposes a lesser penalty.
• Focus on the Operative Act: In theft, the operative act is the “taking.” Once unlawful taking with intent to gain is complete, the crime is generally consummated, regardless of whether the perpetrator successfully benefits from it.
• Entrapment Evidence: Evidence obtained through entrapment, like the marked money in this case, might be relevant to prove intent but does not retroactively change the nature of the initial act (taking the check).

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: Can I be charged with theft if I take something that turns out to be fake or worthless?

A: Potentially, no, for the specific crime of consummated theft. As illustrated in Jacinto, if the item is inherently worthless at the time of taking, it might be considered an impossible crime rather than theft. However, your intent and other actions could still lead to different charges or civil liabilities.

Q: What is the difference between an impossible crime and attempted theft?

A: Attempted theft implies that the crime could have been completed but was interrupted. An impossible crime, on the other hand, means the crime could never have been completed from the outset due to inherent impossibility, like stealing from an empty pocket or, as in this case, taking a worthless check.

Q: If I unknowingly take a bad check, am I committing a crime?

A: Not necessarily theft, just by taking possession. The issue in Jacinto was not just taking the check, but the intent behind it and the abuse of trust. If you genuinely don’t know the check is bad and have no intent to defraud, it’s unlikely to be considered theft. However, depositing a check knowing it’s worthless to gain something could be fraud or estafa.

Q: Does this mean I can take anything worthless without legal consequences?

A: No. While taking something truly worthless might not be theft, it’s crucial to consider your intent and the broader context. Actions intended to deceive or defraud, even involving worthless items, can still lead to legal problems. Moral and ethical considerations also apply.

Q: What should I do if I receive a dishonored check as payment?

A: Contact the issuer immediately to inquire about the dishonor and seek payment. Document all communications. If payment is not forthcoming, you may need to pursue legal remedies, such as a demand letter or filing a civil case to recover the amount owed.

Q: How does grave abuse of confidence qualify theft?

A: Grave abuse of confidence, a qualifying circumstance, applies when the offender betrays the trust placed in them by the victim. In employment contexts, like in Jacinto, employees entrusted with handling payments who misappropriate funds or checks can be charged with Qualified Theft due to this breach of trust.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Commercial Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.