Practice question
A collector unlawfully diverts an employer’s check intending to obtain its face value. It is proved wholly worthless, unfunded and incapable of yielding the sought property benefit, unknown to the collector. The relevant facts match Jacinto, and no separate offense is established by the act. Which is best?
- Every dishonored check in every case automatically establishes impossible crime
- The proved factual impossibility can support impossible-crime liability as in Jacinto, but the conclusion depends on these facts
- The collector is necessarily innocent because the plan failed
- The absence of proceeds proves lack of intent to gain
- All later separate fraudulent schemes are automatically absorbed
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Articles4(2),6 and59: impossible objective or means distinguished from stages of a possible felony.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/oct1992/gr_103119_1992.html — Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 103119, October 21, 1992, main decision: factual and legal impossibility, absent intended victim and empty-pocket example.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_162540_2009.html — Jacinto v. People, G.R. 162540, July 13, 2009, main decision: evil intent, impossible taking of a worthless check and distinction from a separate criminal scheme.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.