Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 227 views

    Dizon-Pamintuan Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Camille Grande
    Norma Dizon-Pamintuan was convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law after jewelry stolen from Teodoro Encarnacion's home was found being sold at her stall. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the elements of the crime of fencing were met as Norma was in possession of stolen goods and knew or should have known they were stolen based on Section 5 of the law, which makes mere possession of stolen goods prima facie evidence of fencing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dizon-Pamintuan Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Camille Grande
    227 views2 pages
    Norma Dizon-Pamintuan was convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law after jewelry stolen from Teodoro Encarnacion's home was found being sold at her stall. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the elements of the crime of fencing were met as Norma was in possession of stolen goods and knew or should have known they were stolen based on Section 5 of the law, which makes mere possession of stolen goods prima facie evidence of fencing.

    Original Description:

    dizon vs pamintuan case digest

    Original Title

    Dizon-pamintuan vs Pp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Norma Dizon-Pamintuan was convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law after jewelry stolen from Teodoro Encarnacion's home was found being sold at her stall. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the elements of the crime of fencing were met as Norma was in possession of stolen goods and knew or should have known they were stolen based on Section 5 of the law, which makes mere possession of stolen goods prima facie evidence of fencing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    227 views2 pages

    Dizon-Pamintuan Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    Camille Grande
    Norma Dizon-Pamintuan was convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law after jewelry stolen from Teodoro Encarnacion's home was found being sold at her stall. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the elements of the crime of fencing were met as Norma was in possession of stolen goods and knew or should have known they were stolen based on Section 5 of the law, which makes mere possession of stolen goods prima facie evidence of fencing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN

    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
    G.R. No. 111426
    July 11, 1994

    Facts:

    Five unidentified masked armed persons robbed the house Teodoro Encarnacion, then Undersecretary
    of DPWH. They took away jewelries and other personal properties including cash. Encarnacion then
    reported the matter immediately to the police. ! He was later told that some of the lost items were in
    Chinatown area as tipped by the informer the police and an entrapment was made with their
    participation. He and his wife posed as a buyer and were able to recognize items of the jewelry stolen
    displayed at the stall being tended by Norma Dizon Pamintuan

    Norma was arrested, tried and convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    In convicting the petitioner, the trial court ruled that “there is not doubt that the recovered items were
    found in the possession of the accused and she was not able to rebut the presumption (Sec. 5) though
    the evidence for the prosecution alleged that the stall is owned by Fredo.

    The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.

    Issue:

    WON accused is guilty of the crime charged

    Held:

    Yes.

    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, possess, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner
    deal 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 him or for another.

    Since Section 5 of PD 1612 expressly provides that “mere possession of any good, article, item or 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.

    You might also like