b) Intent (Actus non facit reum nisi mes sit rea

)
1) criminal intent Presumed – Mens Rea
2) General and Specific Intent
3) Intent and motive
Mens Rea and Actuc Reus
Valenzuela v. People
I. Issue: Whether or not to freely dispose the articles stolen is
necessary to produce the crime of theft
II.
Facts:
 A security guard (Lorenzo Laga) eyed petitioner Aristotel
Valenzuela with Jovy Calderon who where wearing identification
cards with the mark “Receiving Dispaching Unit” come out from
the supermarket of SM (Super Sale Club).
 unloaded cases of detergent “Tide” and later cartons of “Tide
Ultramatic” from a pushcart in the open parking space.
 Petitioner called a taxi and loaded the items but when the taxi
proceeded to leave the parking lot with the items as well as with
Valenzuela and Calderon, they where stopped by Laga and upon
being questioned of their tickets began to flee on foot.
 Defense: Valenzuela stated his purpose was to meet with a
cousin in the parking lot and ran upon seeing the security guard
fire the gun and Calderon stated purpose was to withdraw in his
ATM and eating snacks and ran as well when they heard a gun
shot.
 RTC ruled guilty of consummated theft
 Defense: Both appealed but only Valenzuela, petitioner pleaded
to be accounted frustrated theft not consummated theft due to
“not placed in a position to freely dispose of articles stolen” citing
case People v. Dino & People v. Flores that where convicted from
consummated theft to frustrated theft.
o People v. Dino- CA ruled accused who tried to leave a
military base with 3 boxes of army rifles with frustrated
felony but was stopped by the guard at check point
o People v. Flores- CA ruled the accused, a checker who
issues a receipt of an empty sea van to the truck driver but
the truck driver was stopped by the guard when leaving
and the sea van (shipping containers moved via ocean)
had other merchandize, frustrated theft.
 CA affirmed RTC decision
III. Ruling
 Court Ruled freely dispose the articles stolen is not necessary to
produce the crime of theft
 Presumed inability of offender to disposed stolen items does not
negate the fact owners property is depreived upon completing
“taking” ultimately consummated theft

Ratio: it is from actus reus (external criminal act) and mens rea
(criminal intent) that a felony is produced
o Jurisprudence considers sufficient consumated theft
produced upon deprivation of personal property (actus
reus) due to taking with intent to gain (mens rea)
regardless of lack sufficient possession inorder to gain
ability to dispose stolen property
 U.S. v Adiao- customs inspector abstracted a belt
from a foreign national and kept item in his desk at
custom house and was “under observance during the
transaction” executed all elements of theft
 Spain SC decision convicting consummated then
frustrated theft Caught taking fruit of a land even if possession
is short time interval
 Picked pocket during mass inside church
 Court stating accuse upon taking the money
with intent to gain executed all acts and is
consummated
o In interpreting legislators intent and purpose implied or
expressed through language of the law in Article 308 the
ability of offender to freely dispose of the property is not
constitutive element of the crime of theft.
 Ratio: Elements of Article 308 does not include
dispose of the property;
 Elements of theft as provided in Article 308
a. Taking personal property
b. Property belong to another
c. Taking done with intent to gain
d. Taking without consent of owner
e. Taking accomplished without violence or
intimidation to persons
 La libre disposicion (freedom to dispose assets) of
the property not an element for theft in 1870 Codigo
Penal de Espana, Spanish Penal Code but was
questioned by Salvador Vlada
o Chief Justice Aquino commentary “ In theft or robbery,
crime is committed after accused had material possession
of thing with intent to appropriate the same, although act
make use of thing frustrated.
o Dino and Flores does not enjoy weight of stare decisis
 There is no mandate or statute to compel the court
to adopt Dino and Flores
 Dino do not rely on Philippine laws or jurisprudence
and Flores relied on Dino

Descriptions:
Elements of Felony:
a. There must be an act or omission
b. Punishable in the RPC
c. Incurred through dolo or culpa
Types of felony
a. Consummated felony- all elements necessary for execution
and accomplishment is present
b. Attempted felony- performs all necessary act to constitute
felony but does not produce independent of will of
perpetrator
c. Frustrated felony- commences the commission of the
directly by overt acts and does not perform all elements to
execute acts that should produce felony by reason
independent of will of perpetrator
Elements of Dolo:
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. Intent
Intent (Actus non facit reum nisi mes sit rea)
a. Criminal Intent Presumed-Mens Rea
 If proved accused committed criminal charged
presumption the act was done with criminal intention
and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption
Dictionary:
a. Mens Rea- criminal intent/guilty mind
b. Actus reus- wrongful act/ overt act/ open external act that
criminal intent can be implied
c. Actus non facit reum nisi mes sit rea- conviction of a crime
requires proof of criminal act and intent/ordinary, evil
intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a
crime
d. Flurtum est contrectario rei fraudluosa, lucre faciendi causa
vel ipsius rei, vel etiam usus ejus possessinisve- Furtum
theft is the act of unlawfully handling a thing capable of
being stolen with the wrongful intention of entirely
appropriating it or only making use of it or obtaining
possession of it.
e. Animo lucrandi- intent to gain/profit
f. Apoderamiento- seizure/ unlawful taking
Laws
a. Article 308 Who are liable for theft. — Theft is 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.

Theft is likewise committed by:
i. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail
to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner;
ii. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged
the property of another, shall remove or make use of
the fruits or object of the damage caused by him;
and
iii. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a
field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner, shall
hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or
other forest or farm products.
Notes:
 Existence of intent is evident in the overt act
o Carrying away items of another and concealing from the
police and denying existence
 Frustrated theft not aligned in legislated framework of crime of
theft
 Empelis v IAC case that constitute frustrated theft on lack
executing all elements of crime is erred and cant give weight and
not used in case