No felonious intent

In the crime of robbery, the unlawful taking must be with intent to gain. If there is no such felonious intent, there is no robbery committed. This is illustrated in this case of Luz, the supposed victim of the robbery and Frank, the accused.

Luz was the second wife of Ato. They got married way back in 1973 after the death of Ato’s first wife Precy. But over the years and after having children, their relationship turned sour until they separated with Ato going to the US, leaving Luz and the children in their house in the province.

After the 1990 earthquake however, Luz and her children had to temporarily move out of their house and stayed in an apartment located at a nearby town.

During this time Ato learned that Luz had been selling their personal properties. Alarmed, he asked Romy his son by his first wife Precy who was staying within the neighborhood to retrieve whatever was left in their house as those properties belonged to his mother Precy.

Romy readily obeyed and proceeded to Luz’ house. Since the house was then closed and uninhabited, he demolished the northeastern portion of the kitchen to gain entry. Then he solicited his neighbors’ help in bringing out the properties from Luz’ house. Among those who assisted him were Mario, Ely, and Frank.

Somebody who saw Romy and Frank bringing out chairs, aparadors, mortars, big frying pan, wooden bench and bed from the house reported the incident to Luz who then went to the respective houses of Romy and Frank. She discovered that her properties were brought to Romy’s house, save for the wooden bench she saw just outside of Frank’s house. Luz thus took pictures of her personal belongings and reported the matter to the police.

So Romy and Frank were charged with the crime of robbery with force upon things. Both pleaded not guilty. While Romy admitted taking the properties, he said he had no intent to gain as he was merely obeying the instructions of his father to take them since they belonged to his late mother. Frank on the other hand also denied taking the property for gain as he merely helped Romy bring out the said properties. He explained that wooden bench was temporarily left in his house upon Romy’s request since his house was relatively nearer the house of Luz. But before Romy could transfer it to his house, Luz arrived and reported them to the police.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Romy but directed him to repair the wall destroyed and to pay P10,000. Frank however was convicted of the crime charged and sentenced to imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day minimum to 8 years maximum and to pay P3,700.

On appeal by Frank, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the decision of the RTC. The CA said the Romy’s acquittal cannot benefit Frank because Romy’s defense is based on personal relationship with Luz. Further it ruled that there was intent to gain as Frank failed to explain how he was able to gain possession of the wooden bench. Was the RTC and CA correct?

No. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through overt acts of the offender. The unlawful taking of another’s property gives rise to the presumption that the act was committed with intent to gain. This presumption holds unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. The term “gain” is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act done. Thus the mere use of the thing taken without the owner’s consent constitutes gain.

In this case there is no moral certainty that Frank acted with intent to gain. Romy was the one who wanted the properties taken out from Luz’ house under claim of ownership. And he asked his neighbors including Frank to assist him in recovering the properties. Like the others, Frank was an innocent person who merely acceded to a neighbor’s request.

The only fact that raises doubt on Frank’s innocence was the presence of the wooden bench in his house. But Frank explained that owing to the proximity of his house to that of Luz’ house, Romy asked that the bench be temporarily left there until he could transfer it. Unfortunately before Romy could remove it, Luz had already filed a complaint against them. Noticeably Frank did not falsely claim ownership over the bench nor did he make any effort to conceal it. Frank should not therefore be held answerable for the act charged absent a felonious intent. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent (Guzman vs. People, G.R. 166502, October 17, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]