Superior Court of Justice Recognized That the Theft of Low-Value Food Recovered by the Establishment Does Not Cause Property Damage and Allows Acquittal Even in Cases of Recidivism
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided to acquit a man sentenced to 1 year and 2 months in prison for stealing about 1.1 kg of meat from a supermarket. The decision, reported by Minister Marluce Caldas, recognized that, even in the presence of a criminal record, it is possible to apply the principle of insignificance when the stolen item is food, of low value, and recovered by the establishment.
The case reignited the debate about the limits of criminal punishment in situations involving basic needs and social vulnerability. The man claimed to have stolen the food to feed his four children, an argument that weighed in the court’s final understanding.
Even as a Recidivist, Defendant is Acquitted for Act Considered to Have No Penal Relevance
The man had initially been convicted by the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP), which upheld the sentence on the grounds that the defendant was a recidivist and, therefore, did not fall under the so-called theft out of hunger — that committed by someone acting in a state of hunger or extreme need.
The São Paulo court also argued that since the meat was frozen, it was not intended for immediate consumption, which would rule out the possibility of applying the principle of excludent of unlawfulness.
-
Amid the United States’ economic blockade, China delivers 15,000 tons of rice to Cuba as part of a 60,000-ton donation personally approved by Xi Jinping. The package includes 80 million dollars and solar panels for hospitals.
-
For around 200 reais, anyone can buy a kit and have a chip implanted between their fingers to replace cards, keys, badges, and even medical information in case of a hospital emergency.
-
A 600-meter hill in the interior of Santa Catarina hides a volcanic past of almost 600 million years. The Morro do Garrafão in Corupá may have been an ancient extinct volcano, and science now confirms what the residents have always suspected.
-
Family has lived for over 50 years without electricity and running water at home in the South of Minas, 10 minutes from the city, improvising light, bath, and water while facing a lack of basic resources and awaiting property regularization.
However, Minister Marluce Caldas understood differently. In analyzing Habeas Corpus 1.011.477, she highlighted that the jurisprudence of the STJ itself admits penal insignificance in cases of theft of low-value food products, especially when there is no economic harm. In this case, the meat was returned to the supermarket, which eliminated any property damage.
STJ Reinforces Trend of Recognizing Insignificance in Food Theft
According to information published by the Consultor Jurídico magazine, the decision follows a recent trend from the STJ to consider thefts of essential goods like food and personal hygiene items to be insignificant, provided they are of trivial value and do not harm the owner.
The minister pointed out that isolated recidivism is not enough to deny the application of the principle when the conduct shows minimal offensiveness, absence of social dangerousness, and low degree of reproach.
In her decision, Caldas was emphatic:
“The application of the principle of insignificance is admitted when the res furtivae refers to a low-value food or hygiene item, as in this case, simple theft of beef and pork, valued at less than 10% of the current minimum wage, where the conduct did not cause any property damage, since the goods were returned to the supermarket.”
The case adds to the list of decisions that recognize the right to acquittal in situations of social vulnerability, opening an important precedent for similar cases.
Decision May Influence Future Judgments and Reinforces Humanitarian Role of Justice
Although the topic still generates divergence in lower courts, the STJ’s decision reinforces a more humanized view of penal application. For experts, the understanding seeks to differentiate acts of real necessity from criminal practices motivated by property gain.
According to legal scholars consulted by ConJur, this type of decision does not encourage crime but reaffirms that Criminal Law should be the last resort, reserved for truly harmful conducts.
Thus, the court reaffirms the principle that Justice should act with proportionality and social sensitivity, especially in cases involving hunger and survival.
The information was disclosed by the electronic magazine Consultor Jurídico (ConJur), based on Habeas Corpus 1.011.477 judged by Minister Marluce Caldas, of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).

-
-
-
-
-
40 people reacted to this.