Theft Flashcards
Criminal Law 2018 IVa
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica?
Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, 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. While the CCTV captured Rica surreptitiously taking the necklace from a jewelry store without the knowledge and consent of the store owner, she cannot be charged with theft, because the taking was made under a claim of ownership. The fact of ownership negates any intention to gain, as Rica cannot steal the necklace which she claims to own.
Criminal Law 2018 IVb
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was the real owner of the necklace?
Even if it was proven that the necklace was brought by the store from another person who was the real owner of the necklace, Rica still cannot be held accountable for theft absent a felonious intent. “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.” A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.
The ruling in US vs. Vera (1 Phil 485, May 31, 1974) is emphatic, i.e., if a person takes personal property of another believing it to be his own, the presumption of intent to gain is rebutted and therefore he is not guilty of theft.
