Manzanaris v.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. L-64750
January 30, 1984

Principle of Actus Non Facit Reum, Nesi Mens Sit Rea (an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind)
A crime is not commited if the mind of the person performing to act complained be innocent

Facts:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Sandiganbayan finding the petitioner Atty. Selso M. Manzanaris guilty of infidelity in the
custody of documents under Article 226, paragraph 2 of the R.P.C.

Atty. Selso Manzanaris, the petitioner, is the Clerk of Court of the First Instance Court of Basilan since 1963, he is the custodian of all the
records of the said court. One of the cases filed in the said court was a criminal case against Geronimo Borja for malversation of funds,
in which a property with Title No. 877 was used as a property bond. When the petitioner discovered through his subordinate that the
original title for the said property was not existing in the Register of Deeds, he ordered his subordinate to deliver the owner’s copy to
Borja for the administrative restitution of such.

Borja signed a receipt saying

“Received from the Clerk of Court Selso M. Manzanaris OCT No. 877 to be reconstituted in the Register of Deeds. . .. After reconstitution
to be returned to the court”.

The said release and delivery was done without any court order.

The wife of Geronimo Borja, Trinidad Borja, was able to reconstitute the Original Certificate of Title No. 877 in November 1974 but the
Certificate was not turned over to the court.

On June 11, 1975 the building of the Court of First Instance of Balisan was burned along with all the records and documents of the court.

In 1981, one Atty. Filoteo Jo, filed a motion with the court to borrow the Certificate Title No. 877 which was denied because this was
among those burned in the fire based on the certication submitted by Manzanaris. Atty. Jo, later informed Manzanaris that the said title
was in the possession of Trinidad Borja, who successfully reconstitute the same. Only then that Manzanaris remembered that he had the
title delivered to Geronimo Borja for reconstitution, since then Manzanaris had repeatedly asked Trinidad Borja to returned the
reconstituted title to the court. The latter, however, can longer find it in the files of her deceased mother, who is the registered owner.

Petitioner admitted having removed Title No. 877 from the custody of the court and having delivered the same to Geronimo Borja for the
its administrative reconstitution after he had found out that the original of said title in the Office of the Register of Deeds was missing. In
his defense he insisted that delivering the said title to Borja lawful and in the best interest of the State, since it is a property bond of the
accused Borja.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Selso Manzanaris is guilty under Article 226, paragraph 2 of the R.P.C

Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that to warrant guilt of the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents, the act of removal should be coupled
with criminal intent or illicit purpose. This calls to mind the maxim “Actus non facit reum, nisi means sit rea” which means that a crime is
not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained is innocent. To constitute a crime, the act should be accompanied
by a criminal intent. As a general rule if the accused is proved to have committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that it was
done with criminal intent, but in the case at bar, the act committed is not criminal. Thus the decision of the Sandiganbayan is hereby set
aside and petitioner acquitted of the crime charged.