jacinto vs people

Facts: Baby Aquino paid her purchases from Mega Foam Int'l., Inc to Gemma Jacinto, employee of the company, with a Banco De Oro (BDO) Check in the amount of P10,000.00. The check was deposited in the Land Bank account of Generoso Capitle, the pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of Mega Foam, but was later found to be dishonored. Valencia, former employee of the company, told Ricablanca who is also an employee of the company that the check came from Baby Aquinoand to ask Baby Aquino to replace the check with cash. Valencia also proposed a plan to Ricablanca to take the cash and divide it equally intofour: for herself, Ricablanca, Jacinto and Capitle. Ricablanca reported the plan of Valencia to the owner of Mega Foam, Joseph Dyhengco and eventually the owner went to Aquino to confirm about the dishonored check and found out that Aquino already paid her purchases. Dyhengco filed a Complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked out an entrapmentoperation with its agents in which Ricoblanca pretends that she was still going along with the plan of Valencia. As the result of the NBI entrapment, Ricablanca went to meet the other employees and divided the money( a marked money) in which they had accepted. Valencia and Capitle were arrested by NBI agents watching the time they accepted the marked money .A case was filed against the three accused, Jacinto, Valencia and Capitle. In the RTCs decision, it was showed that the three were guilty of qualified theft. Jacinto petitioned to the CA regarding the RTC Issue: Whether or not a the act committed constitutes as qualified theft. Held: In relation to the provisions stated in the Articles 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. Article 309 states that 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. The CA instead recognizes the act to be an impossible crime. It was considered as impossible crime since the act performed would be an offense against persons or property, the act was done with evil intent and that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual. The petition is GRANTED but the decision by the RTC was modified by the CA stating that Petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found guilty of an impossible crime.

------------------------------------

Yu oh vs ca et al FACTS: Elvira Yu Oh failed to pay purchase price of the jewelry she boought from Solid Gold International Traders . The company filed civil complaints against her. Joaquin Novales III, general manager of Solid Gold, and the petitioner entered into a compromise agreement where petitioner was to issue ninety-nine post-dated checks amounting to P50,000 each to be deposited every 15th and 30thof the month from Ocober 1990 toNovember 16, 1994. Balance of over P1 million was to be paid in cash, lump sum, on November16, 1994 as well. Yu oh issued 10 checks amounting to P50,000 each drawn against her account in EquitableBanking Corporation but when Novales deposited the checks with Far East Bank and Trust Company it was found that the checks were dishonored because the account was already closed. Yu oh was not given notice to the discovery of the dishonor of her checks. October 5, 1992 when Novales filed 10 separate Informations to the Pasig RTC. On December 22, 1993 RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of ten counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law . Yu Oh appealed to the Court of Appeals but the CA found it to be of no merit and affirmed the RTCs decision. She was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for each count and indemnification of P500, 000. ISSUES Whether or not a notice of dishonor to the drawer(Yu oh) was necessary in warranting a conviction Whether or not RA 7691 should be applied retroactively to the petitioners case. Held Yes . The absence of said notice therefore deprives an accused of an opportunity to preclude criminal prosecution. In other words, procedural due process demands that a notice of dishonor be actually served on petitioner. No. RA 7691 is not a penal law hence it must not be applied retroactively even if the nature of it is favorable to the petitioner. The decision of the CA is reversed and the decision of the RTCregarding the penalty and damages against the petitioner is reaffirmed by the SC .