G.R. No. 162540 July 13, 2009 GEMMA T. JACINTO, Petitioner vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Responden PERALTA, J.! A petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Gemma T. Ja into see!in" t#e reversal of t#e $e ision of t#e %ourt of Appeals affirmin" petitioner&s onvi tion of t#e rime of 'ualified T#eft, and its (esolution denyin" petitioner&s motion for re onsideration. F"# s! )aby A*uino #anded petitioner Gemma Ja into a )an o $e +ro ,)$+- %#e ! in t#e amount of P10,000.00. T#e #e ! was payment for )aby A*uino&s pur #ases from .e"a /oam 0nt&l., 0n ., and petitioner was t#en t#e olle tor of .e"a /oam. 1ome#ow, t#e #e ! was deposited in t#e 2and )an! a ount of Generoso %apitle, t#e #usband of Ja *ueline %apitle3 t#e latter is t#e sister of petitioner and t#e former pri in", mer #andisin" and inventory ler! of .e"a /oam. 2ater, (owena (i ablan a, anot#er employee of .e"a /oam, re eived a p#one all from an employee of 2and )an!, w#o was loo!in" for Generoso %apitle. T#e reason for t#e all was to inform %apitle t#at t#e sub4e t )$+ #e ! deposited in #is a ount #ad been dis#onored. (i ablan a t#en alled and relayed t#e messa"e t#rou"# a used Anita 5alen ia, a former employee6 olle tor of .e"a /oam, be ause t#e %apitles did not #ave a p#one3 but t#ey ould be rea #ed t#rou"# 5alen ia, a nei"#bor and former o7employee of Ja *ueline %apitle at .e"a /oam. 5alen ia t#en told (i ablan a t#at t#e #e ! ame from )aby A*uino, and instru ted (i ablan a to as! )aby A*uino to repla e t#e #e ! wit# as#. 5alen ia also told (i ablan a of a plan to ta!e t#e as# and divide it e*ually into four8 for #erself, (i ablan a, petitioner Ja into and Ja *ueline %apitle. (i ablan a, upon t#e advise of .e"a /oam&s a ountant, reported t#e matter to t#e owner of .e"a /oam, Josep# $y#en" o. T#ereafter, Josep# $y#en" o tal!ed to )aby A*uino and was able to onfirm t#at t#e latter indeed #anded petitioner a )$+ #e ! for P10,000.00 as payment for #er pur #ases from .e"a /oam. )aby A*uino furt#er testified t#at petitioner Ja into also alled #er on t#e p#one to tell #er t#at t#e )$+ #e ! boun ed. 5erifi ation from ompany re ords s#owed t#at petitioner never remitted t#e sub4e t #e ! to .e"a /oam. 9owever, )aby A*uino said t#at s#e #ad already paid .e"a /oam P10,000.00 as# as repla ement for t#e dis#onored #e !. $y#en" o filed a %omplaint wit# t#e :ational )ureau of 0nvesti"ation ,:)0- and wor!ed out an entrapment operation wit# its a"ents. Ten pie es of P1,000.00 bills provided by $y#en" o were mar!ed and dusted wit# fluores ent powder by t#e :)0. T#ereafter, t#e bills were "iven to (i ablan a, w#o was tas!ed to pretend t#at s#e was "oin" alon" wit# 5alen ia&s plan. (i ablan a, petitioner, #er #usband, and 5alen ia t#en boarded petitioner&s 4eep and went on to )aby A*uino&s fa tory. +nly (i ablan a ali"#ted from t#e 4eep and entered t#e premises of )aby A*uino, pretendin" t#at s#e was "ettin" as# from )aby A*uino. 9owever, t#e as# s#e a tually brou"#t out from t#e premises was t#e P10,000.00 mar!ed money previously "iven to #er by $y#en" o. (i ablan a divided t#e money and upon returnin" to t#e 4eep, "ave P;,000.00 ea # to 5alen ia and petitioner. T#ereafter, petitioner and 5alen ia were arrested by :)0 a"ents, w#o #ad been wat #in" t#e w#ole time. A ase was filed a"ainst t#e t#ree a used, Ja into, 5alen ia and %apitle. (T% rendered its $e ision findin" t#em G$ILT% beyond reasonable doubt of t#e rime of QUALIFIED THEFT and senten ed ea # imprisonment of FI&E '5( %EARS, FI&E '5( MONTHS AN) ELE&EN '11( )A%S, as minimum, o SI* '6( %EARS, EIGHT '+( MONTHS AN) T,ENT% '20( )A%S, as maximum. T#e t#ree appealed to t#e %A and t#e de ision of t#e trial ourt was MO)IFIE), in t#at8,a- t#e senten e a"ainst a used Gemma Ja into stands3 ,b- t#e senten e a"ainst a used Anita 5alen ia is redu ed to < mont#s arresto mayor medium, and , - T#e a used Ja *ueline %apitle is a *uitted. 9en e, t#e present Petition for (eview on Certiorari filed by petitioner alone, Iss-e! He.d! =#et#er or not a wort#less #e ! an be t#e ob4e t of t#eft. As may be "leaned from t#e aforementioned Arti les of t#e (evised Penal %ode, /e pe0son". p0ope0 1 s-23e# o4 /e /e4 5-s /"6e so5e 6".-e, "s /e 7n en 7on o4 /e "##-sed 7s o gain 40o5 /e /7n8 s o.en. T#is is furt#er bolstered by Arti le 309, w#ere t#e law provides t#at t#e penalty to be imposed on t#e a used is dependent on t#e value of t#e t#in" stolen. 0n t#is ase, petitioner unlawfully too! t#e postdated #e ! belon"in" to .e"a /oam, but t#e same was apparently wit#out value, as it was subse*uently dis#onored. T#us, t#e *uestion arises on w#et#er t#e rime of *ualified t#eft was a tually produ ed. T#e %ourt must resolve t#e issue in t#e ne"ative. Intod v. Court of Appeals is #i"#ly instru tive and appli able to t#e present ase. 0n Intod (see doctrines laid out in Intod), t#e %ourt went on to "ive an e>ample of an offense t#at involved fa tual impossibility, i.e., a man puts #is #and in t#e oat po !et of anot#er wit# t#e intention to steal t#e latter&s wallet, but "ets not#in" sin e t#e po !et is empty.

9erein petitioner&s ase is losely a!in to t#e above e>ample of fa tual impossibility "iven in Intod. 0n t#is ase, petitioner performed all t#e a ts to onsummate t#e rime of *ualified t#eft, w#i # is a rime a"ainst property. Petitioner&s evil intent annot be denied, as t#e mere a t of unlawfully ta!in" t#e #e ! meant for .e"a /oam s#owed #er intent to "ain or be un4ustly enri #ed. =ere it not for t#e fa t t#at t#e #e ! boun ed, s#e would #ave re eived t#e fa e value t#ereof, w#i # was not ri"#tfully #ers. T#erefore, it was only due to t#e e>traneous ir umstan e of t#e #e ! bein" unfunded, a fa t un!nown to petitioner at t#e time, t#at prevented t#e rime from bein" produ ed. T#e t#in" unlawfully ta!en by petitioner turned out to be absolutely wort#less, be ause t#e #e ! was eventually dis#onored, and .e"a /oam #ad re eived t#e as# to repla e t#e value of said dis#onored #e !. T#e fa t t#at petitioner was later entrapped re eivin" t#e P;,000.00 mar!ed money, w#i # s#e t#ou"#t was t#e as# repla ement for t#e dis#onored #e !, is of no moment. T#e %ourt #eld in Valenzuela v. People t#at under t#e definition of t#eft in Arti le 30? of t#e (evised Penal %ode t#ere is only one operative a t of e>e ution by t#e a tor involved in t#eft t#e ta!in" of personal property of anot#er.@ As o4 /e 75e /" pe 7 7one0 oo9 possess7on o4 /e #/e#9 5e"n 4o0 Me8" Fo"5, s/e /"d pe04o05ed ".. /e "# s o #ons-55" e /e #075e o4 /e4 , /"d 7 no 2een 75poss72.e o4 "##o5p.7s/5en 7n /7s #"se. +bviously, t#e plan to onvin e )aby A*uino to "ive as# as repla ement for t#e #e ! was #at #ed only after t#e #e ! #ad been dis#onored by t#e drawee ban!. 1in e t#e rime of t#eft is not a ontinuin" offense, petitioner&s a t of re eivin" t#e as# repla ement s#ould not be onsidered as a ontinuation of t#e t#eft. At most, t#e fa t t#at petitioner was au"#t re eivin" t#e mar!ed money was merely orroboratin" eviden e to stren"t#en proof of #er intent to "ain. .oreover, t#e fa t t#at petitioner furt#er planned to #ave t#e dis#onored #e ! repla ed wit# as# by its issuer is a different and separate fraudulent s #eme. Anfortunately, sin e said s #eme was not in luded or overed by t#e alle"ations in t#e 0nformation, t#e %ourt annot pronoun e 4ud"ment on t#e a used3 ot#erwise, it would violate t#e due pro ess lause of t#e %onstitution. 0f at all, t#at fraudulent s #eme ould #ave been anot#er possible sour e of riminal liability. 0: 50B= +/ T9B /+(BG+0:G, t#e petition is GRANTE). T#e $e ision of t#e %ourt of Appeals, are MO)IFIE). Petitioner Gemma T. Ja into is found G$ILT% of an IMPOSSI:LE CRIME as defined and penaliCed in Arti les <, para"rap# 2, and ;9 of t#e (evised Penal %ode, respe tively. Petitioner is senten ed to suffer t#e penalty of si> ,D- mont#s of arrresto mayor, and to pay t#e osts.