16.

Tan vs People - The State may thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P.D. No.
GR NO. 134298 1612, although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is
August 26, 1999 malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and prescribes a higher
By: DPA penalty based on the value of the property.
- In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we set out the essential elements of the
crime of fencing as follows:
Topic: Anti-Fencing Law 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
Petitioners: Ramon Tan 2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery
Respondents: People of the Phil. 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
FACTS: from the proceeds of the said crime;
- Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries engaged in the business 3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of
of manufacturing propellers or spare parts for boats. value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
- Manuelito Mendez was a former employee. Sometime in 1991, Mendez left the company. 4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
- Lim noticed that some of the welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts, such as bronze - Complainant Rosita Lim testified that she lost certain items and Manuelito Mendez confessed
and stainless propellers and brass screws valued at P48,000.00 were missing. that he stole those items and sold them to the accused. However, Rosita Lim never reported
- Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez was arrested in the Visayas and he admitted that he and the theft or even loss to the police. She admitted that after Manuelito Mendez, her former
his companion Gaudencio Dayop stole from the complainant's warehouse some boat spare employee, confessed to the unlawful taking of the items, she forgave him, and did not
parts. prosecute him.
- He pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one who bought the stolen items and who paid - Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecuted de oficio, or even without a private complainant,
the amount of P13,000.00, in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the amount with one but it cannot be without a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, we cannot hold
another. Mendez was forgiven by Lim. Hence, complainant did not file a case against Manuelito for certain that there was committed a crime of theft. Thus, the first element of the crime of
Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop. fencing is absent, that is, crime of robbery or theft has been committed.
- A case was filed against petitioner only for violation of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law). - True, witness Mendez admitted in an extra-judicial confession that he sold the boat parts he
- RTC convicted Lim based on testimonies by Lim and Mendez. CA affirmed. had pilfered from complainant to petitioner. However, the confessant must have the
assistance of counsel.
ISSUE: - Here, the extra-judicial confession of witness Mendez was not given with the assistance of
W/N the prosecution has successfully established the elements of fencing as against petitioner. counsel, hence, inadmissible against the witness.
- In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner,
HELD/RATIO: NO and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. In this case, the theft was not proved because
- Fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612 is "the act of any person who, with intent to complainant Rosita Lim did not complain to the public authorities of the felonious taking of
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose her property.
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value - What is more, there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that
which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the the very stolen articles were the ones sold him.
crime of robbery or theft.” - When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such
- Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he
of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things. actually believes that it does not exist.
- The crime of theft is committed if the taking is without violence against or intimidation of - On the other hand, the words "should know" denote the fact that a person of reasonable
persons nor force upon things. prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or
- The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists.
to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of the crime of robbery or - Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot
theft. penetrate the mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained therein, it must
- Before the enactment of P.D. No. 1612 in 1979, the fence could only be prosecuted as an determine such knowledge with care from the overt acts of that person. And given two equally
accessory after the fact of robbery or theft, as the term is defined in Article 19 of the Revised plausible states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should choose the one which
Penal Code, but the penalty was light as it was two (2) degrees lower than that prescribed for sustains the constitutional presumption of innocence.
the principal. P.D. No. 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by - Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements of fencing, and
the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft." thus petitioner is entitled to an acquittal.
- The crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are separate
and distinct offenses.