2. Intent and Motive

Intent to commit vs. intent to perpetrate

In the case of mala in se, it is necessary, to constitute a punishable offense, for the person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act and to have a criminal intent; in the case of mala prohibita, intent to commit the crime need not be proved, but intent to perform the prohibited act must be shown.

Hence, intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. When an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself. (Sama y Hinupas vs. People, G.R. No. 224469, J. CAGUIOA)

In cases involving the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the prosecution is not excused from proving that possession of the prohibited act was done 'freely and consciously,' which is an essential element of the crime." Hence, a critical element of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is the element of intent to possess or animus possidendi. (Luna vs. People, G.R. No. 231902, J. CAGUIOA)

Kinds of Malice

• Malice in Law is presumed from a defamatory imputation. Proof of malice is not required; malice may be taken for granted as attending the imputation in view of the grossness of the imputation.
• Malice in Fact is actual malice or ill-will, which must be proved. It may be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or purpose to injure.

INTENTIONAL FELONIES

In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious. The act is performed with deliberate intent. The offender, in performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another.

Purpose must be shown but not necessary to be accomplished

The purpose of the uprising must be shown. Without evidence to indicate the motive or purpose of the accused, the crime does not constitute rebellion. (US v. Constantino, GR No. 1186, November 18, 1903)

Intent vs. Motive

Intent to Overthrow Government

Levying war must be with intent to overthrow the government, not merely to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular officer. It matters not how vain and futile the attempt was and how impossible its accomplishment.

Adherence to enemies

Intent to betray; when a citizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest. (Cramer v US, 65 Sup. Ct. 918)

Intent

• If there is sufficient resemblance between the genuine and the forged signatures, it can be concluded that the accused had intention to imitate the genuine signature.
• There can be no “intent” to counterfeit or imitate if the person had authority to sign.

Political crimes

Crimes directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. (People v Hernandez, GR No. L-6025-26)

Wrongful intent

• A person is not guilty if he was not animated by a desire to do wrong or to injure a third person.
• Good faith is a defense. If offender believed what he put was true, he is not liable.

Notes:

• Even if consent to enter into a contract was obtained by violence, it does not make facts narrated in it false.
• There can be falsification by omission.

5 th Act: AlteringTrue Dates

Damage or intent to damage a third party

• Only necessary when falsifying private documents, or using any falsified document in proceedings other than judicial proceedings
• Not necessary when falsifying a public, official, or commercial document
• Also not necessary when documents are used in judicial proceedings

Presumptions

• Possessor and utterer of a falsified document is presumed to be theauthor of the falsification.
• Above is especially so if accused has sufficient and strong motive to falsify.
• “That petitioner benefitted and even profited from the falsified notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage are strong indications that she participated in the falsification of the same document.” (Nierva v. People, G.R. No.153133)

Is intent of offender material?

No, it isn’t.

Estafa and Malicious Mischief, Distinguished

The assertion must be deliberate and willful

A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough. It must be willfull and deliberate “Willfull” means intentionally, with evil intent and legal malice, with the consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is false, with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was true in fact. “Deliberate” implies meditated, as distinguished from inadvertent, acts. (Judge Pimentel Notes p. 89)

Intent, being in an internal state, must be judged by external acts

Thus, it may be deduced from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim, his design being only to maltreat him, such that when he realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary. (People v. Ural, No. L-30801)

Inapplicable when the offender employed brute force

The brute force employed by the appellant, completely contradicts the claim that he had no intention to kill the victim." (People v. Yu, No. L13780)

Deliberate intent to hurt feelings

There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful. Mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough.

Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential

Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public authority is present indicates lack of intention to insult the public authority. (Reyes, Book I)