Intent to gain in theft

Dear PAO,

My daughter works as a househelper. Unfortunately, she was victimized by the Dugo-Dugo Gang and was fooled into believing that her boss had an accident and was in dire need of money as soon as possible. She was told to look for jewelry and cash and to meet someone in Quiapo who would then bring them to the hospital. Out of panic, she did what she was told to do, boarded a taxi to Quiapo, met the man, and handed over the pieces of jewelry and cash to him. Later that day, her boss came home and apparently did not have an accident. My daughter was charged with qualified theft for what happened. My daughter had no intention of gaining anything from the said incident. Should intent to gain be proved as an element of theft? Dear JC,

Please be informed of the Honorable Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of People of the Philippines v. Belen Mejares y Valencia (GR 225735, Jan. 10, 2018, Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen), where intent to gain was defined and discussed by the Supreme Court in the following manner:

“This Court has been consistent in holding that ‘intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. [Thus,] [a]ctual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.’ In this case, it is clear from the established facts that it was accused-appellant who opened the drawer in the masters’ bedroom and took away the cash and valuables it contained. Therefore, the burden is on the defense to prove that intent to gain was absent despite accused-appellant’s actual taking of her employer’s valuables. It is precisely this burden that the defense failed to discharge. (Emphasis ours)

“The Court of Appeals is correct in pointing out that the actions of accused-appellant before, during, and after the crime all belie her claim that she did not willfully commit the crime. It correctly underscored the following observations of the Regional Trial Court:

“Why would accused hang the landline phone if not to ensure that she was not discovered in the nick of time to have her loot recovered?

“While accused portrays herself as the victim, prosecution evidence has established that she is the victimizer. This conclusion has the following bases: first, the surreptitious way accused handled the incoming calls; second, her failure to heed the warnings of persons around her, i.e., Raquel and security guard Garcia; third, her inability to make use of the myriad opportunities available to verify the alleged vehicular accident where her mistress figured in.

“Normal human experience, as well as the consistency in and confluence of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses lead to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant, taking advantage of her being a domestic helper of private complainant for approximately a year, committed the crime of qualified theft. If she honestly believed that her employer had met an accident and was genuinely worried for her, she could have easily sought the help of any of her co-workers in the household. When warned about the dugo-dugo gang, accused-appellant could have paused to re-assess the situation. She failed to do all these security measures with no convincing justification. Indeed, accused-appellant’s persistence to leave the condominium with the valuables and her refusal to let the security guard talk to her employer further belie her position.”

As stated above, intent to gain does not need to be proven because it is presumed from the taking of personal property. It is an internal act that is made apparent by the unlawful taking of personal property. Since it is an internal act and would be difficult to prove, the law then created a presumption that as a thing is unlawfully taken, it was done with the intent to gain. Actual gain need not be proven. Moreover, the burden rests on the defense to prove that the taking was without intent to gain. If the defense fails to discharge such a burden, then the presumption stands. In this regard, the surrounding circumstances and the actions of the accused before, during, and after the crime will be scrutinized to determine whether he or she has indeed committed the crime. These standards will be applied by the court in your daughter’s case to determine if she has criminal liability for the theft incident.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.