Francisco de Guzman vs. People of the Philippines

Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) in robbery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; the unlawful taking of another's property gives rise to a presumption of intent to gain, but this presumption is rebutted where special circumstances reveal that the accused merely assisted a person who claimed ownership of the property, without any overt act showing a felonious design.

Lucia Valdez married Agustin Valdez in 1973 following the death of Agustin's first wife, Presentacion. The marriage soured and the spouses separated, with Agustin relocating to the United States while Lucia remained in the couple's house in Sobredillo, Caba, La Union. Ramon Valdez is Agustin's son with his first wife Presentacion. After the July 16, 1990 earthquake, Lucia and her children temporarily moved to an apartment in Paringao, Bauang, La Union.

Lucia Valdez married Agustin Valdez sometime in 1973, following the death of Agustin's first wife, Presentacion. The relationship of Lucia and Agustin thereafter turned sour and the two separated. Agustin went to the United States of America while Lucia remained in the couple's house in Sobredillo, Caba, La Union. After the July 16, 1990 earthquake, Lucia and her children temporarily moved out of their residence and stayed in an apartment in Paringao, Bauang, La Union.

During this time, Agustin learned that Lucia had been selling their personal properties. Alarmed, he asked Ramon Valdez, his son with Presentacion, to retrieve whatever was left in their house as those properties belonged to Ramon's mother. Ramon, who was also residing within Sobredillo, Caba, La Union, readily obeyed his father. Thus, sometime during the first week of September 1990, Ramon went to Lucia's house which was then closed and uninhabited. Consequently, Ramon demolished the north eastern portion of Lucia's kitchen to gain entry. He then solicited his neighbors' help in bringing out the properties from Lucia's house. Among those who assisted Ramon were Marlon Gatchalian, Elpidio Picazo, and petitioner Francisco de Guzman.

Agustin Mendegoria, the common-law husband of one of Lucia's daughters, witnessed the retrieval incident. He saw Ramon and petitioner bring out chairs, aparadors, mortars, a big frying pan, a wooden bench, and a bed from Lucia's house. Mendegoria immediately reported the matter to Lucia, who then went to the respective houses of Ramon and petitioner. She discovered that her properties were brought to Ramon's house, save for the wooden bench which was left just outside petitioner's house. Lucia took pictures of her personal belongings and then reported the matter to the police. Thereafter, Ramon and petitioner were charged with the crime of robbery with force upon things under an Information alleging that they conspired and, with intent of gain, entered Lucia's residential house by hammering down the hollow blocks at the northeastern portion not intended for entrance or egress, and took personal properties worth P20,000.00 without the owner's consent.

Both petitioner and Ramon pleaded not guilty to the charge. In his defense, Ramon admitted taking the properties but without intending to gain from his act. After the earthquake in 1990, according to Ramon, he received instruction from his father to take the personal properties belonging to his mother. He maintained that the properties taken were owned by his father and mother, and not by Lucia. Petitioner, for his part, denied taking the properties for gain. He claimed that he merely helped Ramon bring out the properties belonging to the latter's father from Lucia's house. He explained that since his house was relatively nearer to Lucia's house, he acceded to Ramon's request that the wooden bench be temporarily placed in his house. But before Ramon could transfer the bench to his own house, Lucia arrived and reported them to the police.

The trial court found petitioner guilty of robbery with force upon things, while acquitting Ramon, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution had established intent to gain when petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain how he was able to gain possession of Lucia's property. In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner attached an affidavit executed by Lucia stating that petitioner was wrongfully charged of the crime, but the appellate court gave no probative value to the affidavit.

• Absence of Intent to Gain: Petitioner denied taking the properties for gain, claiming that he merely helped Ramon bring out the properties belonging to the latter's father from Lucia's house, and that he acceded to Ramon's request that the wooden bench be temporarily placed in his house because his house was relatively nearer to Lucia's.
• Insufficiency of the Prosecution's Evidence: Petitioner argued that his guilt of the crime charged was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Affidavit of Desistance: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the affidavit executed by the private complainant, although belated, when it truly gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Intent to Gain: Whether the guilt of the petitioner in the crime charged was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the determinative issue revolving on the presence of the element of intent to gain.
• Affidavit of Desistance: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the affidavit executed by the private complainant although belated, when it truly gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the petitioner.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Intent to Gain: No. The element of intent to gain was not established with moral certainty, the records showing that petitioner, like the other neighbors who helped Ramon, merely acceded to a neighbor's request under a claim of ownership.
• Affidavit of Desistance: No. The Court of Appeals could not be faulted for not giving the affidavit of desistance persuasive value, it being settled that affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Intent to Gain: To constitute robbery, the following elements must be established: (1) the subject is personal property belonging to another; (2) there is unlawful taking of that property; (3) the taking is with the intent to gain; and (4) there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force upon things. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the 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, and 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 which is performed; thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain. The Court, however, was not convinced with moral certainty that petitioner had acted with intent to gain. Contrary to the findings of the trial and appellate courts, the records bore out that it was Ramon, under a claim of ownership, who had wanted the properties taken out from Lucia's house, and he had asked his neighbors, petitioner among them, to assist him in recovering these properties. Petitioner, like the others who helped Ramon, was an innocent person who merely acceded to a neighbor's request. The only fact that perhaps raised doubt on petitioner's innocence was the presence of the wooden bench in his house, but petitioner sufficiently explained that owing to the proximity of his house to that of Lucia's, Ramon had asked that the bench be temporarily left in petitioner's house until he could transfer it; unfortunately, before Ramon could remove it, Lucia had already filed a complaint against them. Petitioner did not falsely claim ownership over the bench nor did he make any effort to conceal that the bench was in his possession, as it was placed outside his house. His acts were consistent with his assertion that he was merely helping Ramon, whom he honestly believed to be the owner, take out the properties from Lucia's home. Petitioner should not be held answerable for the act charged 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. As a preliminary matter, the Court noted that while only questions of law may generally be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, and the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding, an exception lies when the judgment assailed is based on a misapprehension of facts, as in this case.
• Affidavit of Desistance: The Court could not fault the appellate court for not giving the affidavit of desistance executed by Lucia persuasive value, it being settled that affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration. Even without the said affidavit, however, the circumstances of the case did not confirm the culpability of petitioner, so that the acquittal rested on the failure of the prosecution to prove intent to gain beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the affidavit.

• Intent to Gain (Animus Lucrandi) in Robbery — Intent to gain is an internal act that can be established through the 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, and this presumption holds unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. In this case, the Court held that the presumption was rebutted because the records showed that it was Ramon, under a claim of ownership, who wanted the properties taken out, and petitioner merely acceded to a neighbor's request to assist.
• Definition of "Gain" — 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 which is performed; thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain. The Court applied this definition but found that petitioner's acts did not amount to gain because he did not falsely claim ownership over the bench nor conceal its possession.
• Elements of Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code — To constitute robbery, the following elements must be established: (1) the subject is personal property belonging to another; (2) there is unlawful taking of that property; (3) the taking is with the intent to gain; and (4) there is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of force upon things. The Court found the third element absent, warranting acquittal.
• 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 Court applied this maxim in holding that petitioner should not be held answerable for the act charged absent a felonious intent.
• Affidavits of Recantation or Desistance — Affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the Court of Appeals did not err in giving no probative value to Lucia's affidavit of desistance.
• Exception to the Conclusiveness of Factual Findings — While only questions of law may generally be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, and the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court, an exception lies when the judgment assailed is based on a misapprehension of facts. The Court applied this exception to review the factual findings in this case.

• "Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the 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." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the element of intent to gain, establishing both the presumption arising from unlawful taking and the exception that rebutted it in this case.
• "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 which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain." — This passage defines the term "gain" for purposes of robbery, a canonical formulation frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on the element of intent to gain.
• "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." — This passage articulates the controlling maxim on criminal intent, which the Court applied to acquit petitioner absent a felonious intent.
• "To stress, petitioner should not be held answerable for the act charged absent a felonious intent." — This passage states the conclusion of the Court's ratio, directly tying the absence of felonious intent to the acquittal.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. Estonilo, G.R. No. 157306, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 265 — Cited as authority for the exception to the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on the Supreme Court, specifically when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
• International Finance Corporation vs. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc., G.R. No. 160324, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 149 — Cited together with Estonilo for the same exception to the conclusiveness of factual findings.
• Wooden vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152884, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 512 — Cited together with Estonilo and International Finance Corporation for the same exception to the conclusiveness of factual findings.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 528 — Cited as authority for the rule that animus lucrandi is an internal act established through overt acts, and that unlawful taking gives rise to a presumption of intent to gain unless special circumstances reveal a different intent.
• People vs. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284 — Cited as authority for the definition of "gain" as not limited to pecuniary benefit and including the mere use of the thing taken without the owner's consent.
• People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 436 — Cited as authority for the maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
• Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 135098, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 695 — Cited as authority for the rule that affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration.

• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery: "Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery." The Court used this provision to enumerate the elements of robbery and to conclude that the element of intent to gain was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court — Provides that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court cited this provision as the general rule, then applied the recognized exception where the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

• Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson)
• Justice Conchita Carpio Morales
• Justice Dante O. Tinga
• Justice Arturo D. Brion