Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y. Criminal Law II Atty David Yap Class Student No. 3 Anti-Fencing Law Day 6

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Viloria
    Ramon C. Tan was found guilty by the trial court and Court of Appeals of violating the Anti-Fencing Law for buying items worth PHP 13,000 that were stolen by Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayup. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crime of fencing. Specifically, they did not prove that Tan knew or should have known the items were stolen, or that he bought them with the intent to gain for himself or another. The Supreme Court acquitted Tan of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Copyright:

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

    Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y. Criminal Law II Atty David Yap Class Student No. 3 Anti-Fencing Law Day 6

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Viloria
    109 views1 page
    Ramon C. Tan was found guilty by the trial court and Court of Appeals of violating the Anti-Fencing Law for buying items worth PHP 13,000 that were stolen by Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayup. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crime of fencing. Specifically, they did not prove that Tan knew or should have known the items were stolen, or that he bought them with the intent to gain for himself or another. The Supreme Court acquitted Tan of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Original Title

    TAN-VS.-PEOPLE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ramon C. Tan was found guilty by the trial court and Court of Appeals of violating the Anti-Fencing Law for buying items worth PHP 13,000 that were stolen by Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayup. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crime of fencing. Specifically, they did not prove that Tan knew or should have known the items were stolen, or that he bought them with the intent to gain for himself or another. The Supreme Court acquitted Tan of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    109 views1 page

    Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y. Criminal Law II Atty David Yap Class Student No. 3 Anti-Fencing Law Day 6

    Uploaded by

    Marlon Viloria
    Ramon C. Tan was found guilty by the trial court and Court of Appeals of violating the Anti-Fencing Law for buying items worth PHP 13,000 that were stolen by Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayup. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the prosecution did not prove the essential elements of the crime of fencing. Specifically, they did not prove that Tan knew or should have known the items were stolen, or that he bought them with the intent to gain for himself or another. The Supreme Court acquitted Tan of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y.

    Criminal Law II Atty David Yap


    Class Student No. 3 ANTI-FENCING LAW DAY 6

    TAN VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 134298 August 26, 1999 313 SCRA 220

    FACTS:
    Complainant Rosita Lim claimed that she lost some items in her warehouse, such as spare parts,
    and other things worth php 48,000, engaged in their business when she conducted an inventory as soon
    her employee Manuelito Mendez left his work. Mendez admitted that he stole the items together with
    Gaudencio Dayup and sold them to Ramos C. Tan for php 13,000.

    The Regional Trial Court found Ramon C. Tan guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

    Ramon C. Tan contends that he did not steal the items and bought them legally and not from
    Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayup.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the decision is correct in finding Ramon C. Tan guilty in violating anti-fencing
    law?

    HELD:
    No, the decision is incorrect in finding Ramon C. Tan guilty in violating anti-fencing law.
    “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.’ ”
    “Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of
    violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things.” The crime of theft is
    committed if the taking is without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things.
    “The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit,
    or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft.”

    In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we set out the essential elements of the crime
    of fencing 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 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.”

    The Supreme Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
    No. 20059 and hereby ACQUITS petitioner of the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 92-108222 of the
    Regional Trial Court, Manila.Costs de oficio.
    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like