Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
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.
-
At 78 years old, Arnold Schwarzenegger surprises the world by revealing a powerful diet with bananas, lentils, and protein that reduces 80% of meat and promises extreme longevity.
-
An entire island in the Pacific wants to surround itself with a colossal barrier against the ocean to try to escape increasingly violent waves and not be swallowed by the sea in the coming decades.
-
Seen from space, an African lake possibly born from an ancient impact has transformed into a colossal silver mirror in the heart of Chad, in a phenomenon so rare that it can only be seen in this perfect alignment with the Sun.
-
Santa Maria has become Brazil’s fortified city by bringing together military command, training centers, simulators, Leopard maintenance, and the sensitive part of the machinery that supports the heavy troops of the Brazilian Army.
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 pessoas reagiram a isso.