View full case

RAMON C. TAN v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for the crime of fencing by the Regional Trial Court. The complainant, Rosita Lim, is the owner of Bueno Metal Industries and discovered that some welding rods, propellers, and boat spare parts were missing from her warehouse. The missing items were valued at around P48,000. Complainant Lim informed Victor Sy, the uncle of Manuelito Mendez, a former employee, about the loss.

Manuelito Mendez was subsequently arrested and confessed to stealing the items and selling them to the petitioner, Ramon C. Tan, who allegedly paid P13,000 in cash for the stolen goods. Complainant Lim did not file charges against Mendez and his companion. An information for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law was filed against Tan.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Lim, Sy, and Mendez, while the defense presented Lim, Mendez, and Tan as witnesses. Tan denied buying the stolen spare parts and claimed that he never talked or met Mendez.

ISSUES:

  1. The issue raised is whether or not the prosecution has successfully established the elements of fencing as against the petitioner.

  2. Whether there was sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of another's property.

  3. Whether the extra-judicial confession of the witness is admissible as evidence against the accused.

  4. Whether the accused knew or should have known that the items he acquired were stolen.

RULING:

  1. The issue is resolved in favor of the petitioner. The crime of fencing, as defined in Section 2 of P.D. No. 1612, requires the prosecution to prove the existence of all the essential elements of the crime. The elements include: (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 that 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 this case, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the essential elements of fencing. Therefore, the petitioner is acquitted.

  2. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and acquitted him of the offense charged.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Fencing, as defined under P.D. No. 1612, is the act of any person who buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals 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 crimes of robbery or theft and fencing are separate and distinct offenses.

  • The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused by establishing the existence of all the elements of the crime of fencing beyond reasonable doubt.

  • It is an ancient principle of the Philippine penal system that no one shall be found guilty of a crime except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Theft is a public crime that can be prosecuted de oficio, but it cannot be without a victim.

  • An admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in evidence only against the person admitting or confessing. If given extra-judicially, the confessant must have the assistance of counsel for the admission to be admissible as evidence.

  • Corpus delicti refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed. In theft, it has two elements: the property was lost by the owner and it was lost by felonious taking.

  • Knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it does not exist. The words "should know" denote that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that such fact exists.