Tan v.

People (313 SCRA 220)

Facts:
Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries; upon inventory, she found that several pieces of
equipment were missing. Manuelito Mendez was a former employee of Lim, who left her employment before
Lim found out that her goods were missing. 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
complainant’s 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.
Tan was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, otherwise known as
Presidential Decree No. 1612, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor and to indemnify Rosita Lim the value of the stolen
merchandise purchased by him in the sum of P18,000.00.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution has successfully established the elements of fencing as against
petitioner?

Decision:
Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known
to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. The essential elements of the
crime of fencing are as follows: (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 crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused
knew or should have shown 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.
The Supreme Court stated that there was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of another’s property.
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. The Court held that accused Tan could not be held
guilty because there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that the very stolen
articles were the ones sold to him.

People v. Ortega (G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997)

Facts:
Appellants Ortega, Jr. and Garcia were charged with murder. The Information alleged that the accused-
appellants, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause, with treachery
and evident premeditation and with abuse of superior strength and with deliberate intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the
different parts of the body of the victim thereby inflicting serious physical injuries which directly caused his death.
Appellants Ortega and Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charge. RTC, however, found both accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:
Whether or not Appellant Garcia was adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

Held:
No. The Information accused Appellant Garcia (and Appellant Ortega) of “attack[ing], assault[ing], and
stab[bing] repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the different parts of the body one ANDRE MAR MASANGKAY
y ABLOLA.” The prosecution’s evidence itself shows that Garcia had nothing to do with the stabbing which was
solely perpetrated by Appellant Ortega. His responsibility relates only to the attempted concealment of the crime
and the resulting drowning of Victim Masangkay. The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused
cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally,
he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense
other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right.

By parity of reasoning, Appellant Garcia cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an

information that charges murder by means of stabbing.

DIZON-PAMINTUAN vs. PEOPLE (GR No. 111426, July 11, 1994)

Information filed: Norma Dizon-Pamintuan bought, kept, sold and disposed of the following jewelries:
- 1 set of earrings, a ring studded with diamonds in a triangular style (P75,000.00)
- 1 set of diamond studded earrings (P15,000.00)
- 1 diamond-studded crucifix (P3,000.00)
which she knew to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery.

FACTS (both prosecution and defense presented their own set of facts)

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

- When undersecretary of DPWH Teodoro As presented by the testimony of

Encarnacion came home to his Paranaque
house from the airport, he immediately went
inside the house and left his driver and maids to
pick-up his belongings from the car.
- Five unidentified masked armed persons
appeared from the lot behind the house and
pointed their guns at the driver and maids. They
were made to go in the house and together with
Encarnacion, lie face down on the floor.
- Robbers took away jewelries and other
personal belongings like cash
- Encarnacion reported the matter to the police
and made a list of the jewelry that were taken.
- An informer said that some of the lost items
were in Chinatown
- They decided to entrap the person in
possession of the jewelries
- Encarnacion and his wife pretended to be
buyers and were able to recognize items of the
jewelry stolen being displayed at Norma Dizon-
Pamintuan’s stall.
- These items were then confiscated
- Corporal Ignacio Jao and Pfc. Emmanuel
Sanchez attested to these facts in their
testimony
Rosito Dizon-Pamintuan, Brother of
Norma(accused)
- Rosito and Norma were in
front of a Carinderia waiting
for an empty table to eat
lunch.
- Three persons arrived and
Corporal Jao asked Norma to
get the jewelry from inside the
stall. Norma requested that
they wait for Fredo
- When, after ten minutes,
Fredo did not appear, the
police opened the display
window and got the contents

TRIAL COURT:
Guilty, violation of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing law); indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 14 years
of prision mayor to 19 years of reclusion temporal

COURT OF APPEALS:
1. Affirmed that the accused is guilty of violation of PD 1612, all of the elements of the crime of fencing
were present
2. Remand back to RTC because there was not enough evidence to prove the value of the pieces of
jewelry recovered (value is essential in the imposition of the proper penalty under Section 3 of PD
1612

SUPREME COURT

WON accused is guilty of violation of PD 1612

- Yes
- Elements of the crime of fencing:
a. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed
b. 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
c. 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
d. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another
- There is no dispute that the 1st, 2nd and 4th elements are present. The dispute lies with the 3rd element.
- Section 5 of PD 1612 expressly provides that “mere possession of any good, article …. Shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing” (PRESUMPTION OF FENCING)
- Hence, the burden of proving that the acts committed are innocent without unlawful intention now
shifted to the accused.
- The accused was unable to rebut the presumption under Section 5 of PD 1612
o Relied solely of the testimony of her brother (not sufficient)
o Fredo was not presented as a witness and was not established as a licensed dealer of jewelry

WON there is sufficient evidence to prove the actual value of the recovered articles
- Yes
- The testimony of Encarnacion is sufficient.
- But he admitted in his testimony that only one earring was recovered instead of the pair so the value
for must be 7,500php instead of 15,000php
- The total value of the pieces of jewelry would be 87,000php
- Section 3(a) of PD 1612 provides that if the value exceeds 22,000php, the penalty of prision mayor in
its maximum period shall be imposed, adding one year for each addition 10,000php; the total penalty
shall not exceed 20 years
- Hence, petitioner shall be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of
prision mayor maximum as minimum to 18 years and 5 months of reclusion temporal maximum as
minimum

HELD:
Petition partially granted. Decision of RTC is affirmed subject to the modification of the penalty.