MUSTANG LUMBER vs.

COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Petitioner was duly registered as a lumber dealer with the Bureau of Forest Development.
The Special Actions and Investigation Division of the DENR were informed that a
huge stockpile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the
petitioner. The SAID organized a team of foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct
surveillance. In the course thereof, the team member saw coming out from the lumberyard
the petitioner's truck loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions.
Since the driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team
seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded them at the DENR compound. The team
was not able to gain entry into the premises because of the refusal of the owner. The team was
able to secure a search warrant. By virtue thereof, the team seized on that date from the
petitioner's lumberyard four truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings, and slabs; a negligible number
of narra lumber; and approximately 200,000 board feet of lumber and shorts of various species
including almaciga and supa. On 4 April 1990, the team returned to the premises of the
petitioner's lumberyard and placed under administrative seizure the remaining stockpile of
almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber with a total volume of 311,000 board feet because the
petitioner failed to produce upon demand the corresponding certificate of lumber origin,
auxiliary invoices, tally sheets, and delivery receipts from thesource of the invoices covering
the lumber to prove the legitimacy of their source and origin. Parenthetically, it may be stated
that under an administrative seizure the owner retains the physical possession of the seized
articles. Only an inventory of the articles is taken and signed by the owner orhis representative.
The owner is prohibited from disposing them until further orders. On 10 April 1990,counsel for
the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief of SAID Robles requesting an extension of fifteen days to
produce the required documents covering the seized articles because some of them, particularly
the certificate of lumber origin, were allegedly in the Province of Quirino. Robles denied
the petition. Subsequently, the Sec. of DENR Factor an issued an order confiscating the woods
seized in the truck of the petitioner as well as those found in their lumberyard.

Issue: Whether or not that a lumber cannot be considered a timber and that petitioner should not
be held for illegal logging.

Held: The foregoing disquisitions should not, in any manner, be construed as an affirmance of
the respondent Judge's conclusion that lumber is excluded from the coverage of Section 68 of
P.D. No. 705, as amended, and thus possession thereof without the required legal documents is
not a crime. On the contrary, the SC rules that such possession is penalized in the said section
because lumber is included in the term timber. The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition
of either timber or lumber. While the former is included in the forest products as defined in the
definition of Processing plant which reads: processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine
or combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into
lumber, veneer, plywood, wall bond, block board paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood
material. This simple means that lumber is a processed log or processed raw material. Clearly the
code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage.

Taer vs CA

Facts: In the evening of December 5, 1981, accused Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of his
compadre accused Jorge Taer at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, whereat he was benighted. At
about 2:00 o'clock dawn, December 6, 1981, accused Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago
arrived at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by and which Namocatcat wanted Taer
to tend. The said carabaos were left at Taer's place.

Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca of Lantang, Valencia Bohol discovered in the morning of
December 6, 1981 that their respective male carabaos, 3 to 4 years old, were missing at the
different grazing grounds whereat they tied the same the afternoon preceding.

After searching in vain for the carabaos at the vicinity, Dalde and Palaca reported the matter to
the police. On December 15, 1981, one Felipe Reyes of Hinopolan, Valencia, Bohol, informed
Dalde that he saw the latter's lost carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and
Palaca went on that day to Datag and there they found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo
thicket near the house accused Taer who was then not in the house as he was in Napo, Garcia-
Hernandez, attending the fiesta where he cooked for the accused Saludes. Upon query by Dalde
and Palaca why their carabaos were found at his place, accused Taer, according to Dalde and
Palaca replied that the carabaos reached his place tied together without any person in company.
According to accused Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the carabaos were brought to
his place by the accused Namocatcat who asked him to tell anybody looking for them that they
just strayed thereat.

*Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Articles 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime being purposely sought for or taken
advantage by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.

RTC: accused Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer GUILTY beyond doubt of the theft of large
cattle

*Only Jorge Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, finding the evidence
of the prosecution that conspiracy indeed existed between Emilio Namocatcat and Jorge Taer,
affirmed in toto the decision appealed from.
C of A: That the extent of his participation did not go beyond the participation of the original
defendants Cirilo Saludes and Mario Cago. Therefore, he submits that the acquittal of these two
by the trial court should also lead to his acquittal.

Held: Person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing that the same
property had been stolen is guilty as an accessory because he is profiting by the effects of the
crime." By employing the two carabaos in his farm, Taer was profiting by the objects of the theft.

*WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran and affirmed
by the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby MODIFIED in that the herein JORGE TAER is
convicted as an accessory of the crime of cattle-rustling

Ordonio vs CA

Facts: That sometimes in the evening of Tuesday, January 5, 1982, at Bgy. Omanod, Sta.
Catalina, Negros Oriental, Constancio Ordonio, with the intent of gain, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, steal, and carry away one (1) male cow, color red and
white (cabang) highbreed, more or less eleven months old, without the knowledge and consent of
the owner Mr. Anastacio Pajunar. That as a result thereof, the victim Anastacio Pajunar was
damaged and prejudiced in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS (P700.00), Philippine
Currency, as the estimated cost and value of the stolen cow.

A study of this case showed that on January 6, 1982, Anastacio Pajunar discovered the loss of his
eleven month old cow (which he pastured 100 meters from as house on January 5, 1982). He
searched for it and asked his not too distant neighbor, Constancio Ordonio, whether he had seen
it. Ordonio allegedly denied having seen it, and when Pajunar heard the mooing of a cow,
Ordonio was quick to say that was the cow he was tending. However, Pajunar followed the
direction of the sound and discovered that it was his own cow. Ordonio insisted that it was his
brother's cow which was entrusted to him. So Pajunar tied it near Ordonio's house and left to
report the matter to the authorities.

When asked, Ordonio was claiming the cow, his answer was that it was his brother's cow
entrusted to him But Ordonio's wife told her husband thus, "Ne, let's just give the cow to the real
owner and we will pay the damages.

C of A: alibi
Held: The accused-petitioner had the temerity to act thus even if the calf did not belong to him,
but to the complainant as he admitted before the trial court. But independent of the admission by
the accused, complainant ownership of the calf is further forfeited with this one important
circumstance. When complainant went to accused's house, accompanied by barangay
councilman, Pajunar, and two PC soldiers, the milking cow was brought along. Upon arrival, the
PC soldiers let loose the calf and the latter immediately ran to the milking cow to suck on its
milk. Such conduct of the calf manifests all the signs of the young whether human or not, on
finding a lost mother.

-NO NEED TO WRITE THIS

( READ NA LNG) Section 2(c) of P.D. 533, defines cattle rustling as follows:

Sec. 2(c). Cattle rustling is taking away by any means, methods or schemes,
without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of the above mentioned animals
whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing
of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.

(Read Na Lng) Note the phraseology of the provision "taking away by any means,
methods or schemes." Thus, intent to gain may be inferred from the deliberate failure to
deliver the lost property to the proper person, the finder knowing that the property does
not belong to him. 16 In this case, the several circumstances enumerated earlier constitute
an unbroken chain of events which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which
is that the accused indeed took the calf with the intent to appropriate it. 17 To recapitulate,
the stubborn insistence of the accused that the missing calf belonged to his brother,
Agustin, knowing fully well that it belonged to the complainant (as he later admitted in
his answers to questions of the trial court), in essence, is cattle rustling.

Dizon-Pamintuan vs People

Facts: Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary, Department of Public Works and Highways

testified that he has just arrived at his residence located at Better Living Subdivision, Paraaque
at around 9:45 p.m. of February 12, 1988 coming from the Airport and immediately proceeded
inside the house, leaving behind his driver and two housemaids outside to pick-up his personal
belongings from his case. It was at this point that five unidentified masked armed persons
appeared from the grassy portion of the lot beside the house and poked their guns to his driver
and two helpers and dragged them inside his house. That the men pointed a gun at him and was
made to lie face down on the floor. The other occupants, namely his wife, the maids and his
driver were likewise made to lie on the floor. Thereafter, the robbers ransacked the house and
took away jewelries and other personal properties including cash. After the intruders left the
house he reported the matter immediately to the police. He was then interviewed by the
Paraaque police and was informed that an operation group would be assigned to the case.

Corporal Ignacio Jao, Jr. of the WPD testified that he was with the spouses Teodoro Encarnacion,
Jr. in the morning of February 24, 1988 and they proceeded to Florentino Torres Street, Sta.
Cruz, Manila at the stall of Norma Dizon-Pamintuan together with Sgt. Perez. After the spouses
Encarnacion recognized the items subject matter of the robbery at the display window of the stall
being tended by the herein accused, they invited the latter to the precinct and investigated the
same. They likewise brought the said showcase to the WPD station. He further testified that he
has no prior knowledge of the stolen jewelries of the private complainant from one store to
another.

RTC: Petitioner guilty of the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law

CA: AFFIRMED

C of A:

Held: The elements of the crime of fencing are:

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of

the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
proceeds of the said crime;

3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item,
object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and

4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for
another.

In the instant case, there is no doubt that the first, second, and fourth elements were duly
established. A robbery was committed on 12 February 1988 in the house of the private
complainants who afterwards reported the incident to the Paraaque Police, the Western Police
District, the NBI, and the CIS, and submitted a list of the lost items and sketches of the jewelry
taken from them (Exhibits "C" and "D"). Three of these items stolen, viz., (a) a pair of earrings
and ring studded with diamonds worth P75,000.00 (Exhibit "C-2"); (b) one set of earrings worth
P15,000.00 (Exhibit "C-3"); and (c) a chain with crucifix worth P3,000.00 (Exhibit "C-4"), were
displayed for sale at a stall tended to by the petitioner in Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila. The public display of the articles for sale clearly manifested an intent to gain on the part
of the petitioner.

-The more crucial issue to be resolved is whether the prosecution proved the existence of the
third element: that the accused knew or should have known that the items recovered from her
were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that "[m]ere possession of any good, article,
item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall
be prima facie evidence of fencing," it follows that the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge
of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. The
presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established
fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. This presumption does not
offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.

Tan vs People

Facts: Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries, located at 301 Jose
Abad Santos St., Tondo, Manila, engaged in the business of manufacturing propellers or spare
parts for boats. Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees working for her. Sometime in
February 1991, Manuelito Mendez left the employ of the company. Complainant Lim noticed
that some of the welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts, such as bronze and stainless
propellers and brass screws were missing. She conducted an inventory and discovered that
propellers and stocks valued at P48,000.00, more or less, were missing. Complainant Rosita Lim
informed Victor Sy, uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of the loss. Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez
was arrested in the Visayas and he admitted that he and his companion Gaudencio Dayop stole
from the complainants warehouse some boat spare parts such as bronze and stainless propellers
and brass screws. Manuelito Mendez asked for complainants forgiveness. He pointed to
petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one who bought the stolen items and who paid the amount of
P13,000.00, in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the amount with one another.
Complainant did not file a case against Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop.

On relation of complainant Lim, an Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 19, an information against petitioner charging him with
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).

That on or about the last week of February 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously knowingly receive, keep, acquire
and possess several spare parts and items for fishing boats all valued at P48,130.00 belonging to
Rosita Lim, which he knew or should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of theft.

(note: In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we set out the essential elements of the
crime of fencing)

Held: Short of evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the essential
elements of fencing, there can be no conviction for such offense. It is an ancient principle of our
penal system that no one shall be found guilty of crime except upon proof beyond reasonable
doubt (Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 9).

In this case, what was the evidence of the commission of theft independently of fencing?

Complainant Rosita Lim testified that she lost certain items and Manuelito Mendez
confessed that he stole those items and sold them to the accused. However, Rosita Lim never
reported the theft or even loss to the police. She admitted that after Manuelito Mendez, her
former employee, confessed to the unlawful taking of the items, she forgave him, and did not
prosecute him. Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecuted de oficio, or even without a private
complainant, but it cannot be without a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, we
cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. Thus, the first element of the
crime of fencing is absent, that is, a crime of robbery or theft has been committed.

***There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of anothers property. True, witness
Mendez admitted in an extra-judicial confession that he sold the boat parts he had pilfered from
complainant to petitioner. However, an admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an
offense may be given in evidence only against the person admitting or confessing. Even on this,
if given extra-judicially, the confessant must have the assistance of counsel; otherwise, the
admission would be inadmissible in evidence against the person so admitting. Here, the extra-
judicial confession of witness Mendez was not given with the assistance of counsel, hence,
inadmissible against the witness. Neither may such extra-judicial confession be considered
evidence against accused. There must be corroboration by evidence of corpus delicti to sustain a
finding of guilt. Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary
sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed. [ The essential elements of
theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking
away was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons
or force upon things (U. S. vs. De Vera, 43 Phil. 1000). In theft, corpus delicti has two elements,
namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
[21]
In this case, the theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to the
public authorities of the felonious taking of her property. She sought out her former employee
Manuelito Mendez, who confessed that he stole certain articles from the warehouse of the
complainant and sold them to petitioner. Such confession is insufficient to convict, without
evidence of corpus delicti.