Group 2

Fencing; What is fencing? ; Why is the fence only an accessory not a principal?
Definition of robbery; Corpus Delicti in crimes against property
Tan vs. People, 313 SCRA 220 [G.R. No. 134298] (Aug. 26, 1999)
FACTS: Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees of complainant Rosita Lim,
proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries. Mendez left the company and Lim thereafter
noticed that materials valued about P48,000 were missing. Mendez was arrested and he
thereafter admitted to the crime. He asked for forgiveness and he pointed to Ramon C.
Tan, petitioner, as the one who bought the stolen items. Complainant Lim never filed
charges against Mendez.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner may be held liable for fencing.
RULING: Before the enactment of PD 1612, the fence could only be prosecuted as an
accessory after the fact of robbery or theft. Presently, the accessory could be prosecuted
under the RPC or as the principal under PD 1612.
The essential elements of fencing are: 1) a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed; 2) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the crime, with
intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes of,
or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of
value derived from the proceeds of the crime; and 3) the accused knows, or should have
known that the article or object was derived from the proceeds of the crime; there is on
the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself.
Lim reported no loss to the police; therefore it cannot be held for certain that the crime
of theft was committed. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent; that is,
the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. There was no evidence of corpus delicti
as theft or robbery was not proved. What is more, there was no showing that the accused
knew or should have known that the stolen articles were the ones sold to him. Without
the petitioner knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be guilty of fencing.
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.
Corpus delicti in crimes against property are; (1) that the property was lost by the owner;
and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.

Group 2
Principal by Inducement; Elements
People vs. De La Cruz, 97 SCRA 385 (April 30, 1980)
FACTS: The accused (dela cruz) is the principal by inducement in the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. He proposed to other accused a plan to kill
Antonio Yu and to kidnap his younger brother, Yu Chi Chong for ransom. At the ambush
spot, one of the accused who is in the truck driven by Yu Chi Chong, intentionally
dropped his towel in order to stop the truck. The ambushers dragged Yu Chi Chong and
another man but the latter was released. Yu Chi Chong tried to escape but failed, causing
one of the accused to be mad and shoot him to death. Dela Cruz denied the allegations,
that since he did not take part in the commission of the crime, conspiracy does not exist
and consequently he incurs no criminal liablity.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dela Cruz is the principal by inducement.
RULING: The requisites necessary in order that a person may be convicted as a principal
by inducement are:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime
by the material executor.
Without him the crime would not have been conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he
was a principal by induction, with collective criminal responsibility with the material
executors, his co-accused.

Group 2
Accessory by profiting himself by the effects of the crime
Mendoza vs. People, 157 SCRA [L-46484] (Jan. 29, 1988)
FACTS: On November 28, 1965, three hundred 10 bags of American rice valued at P5,908.60
belonging to the Rice and Corn Administration, which should be delivered to RCA warehouse No.
3 Pureza Street, Manila under the accountability of Emilio Rosella were instead delivered by
Reponte, Escopin and Frank to a grocery store owned by Leonardo Mendoza at 160 A. Bonifacio,
Balintawak, Quezon City. While the bags of rice are being unloaded, police operatives arrived and
arrested Reponte, Escopin and Mendoza. Frank eluded arrest and has not been apprehended.
After due investigation, Leandro Mendoza was charged as accessory in a crime of qualified theft
together with Ponciano Reponte, Wilfredo Escopin and John Doe alias Frank as principals.
On July 7,1968, the lower court promulgated a decision finding Mendoza guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as accessory after the fact of the crime of qualified theft. The lower court
imposed on him the indeterminate penalty of four [4] months and twenty [20] days of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to one [1] year, eight [8] months and twenty-one [21] days of prision
correccional, as maximum, without indemnity in view of the recovery of the goods stolen and to
pay the costs.
Mendoza appealed, but the CA affirmed the lower courts decision. Mendoza filed a petition for
review on certiorari. Mendoza contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the
prosecution adequately established the commission of the crime of qualified theft and in
affirming his conviction as accessory after the fact. He asserts that his guilt as such accessory
could not be sustained in the absence of evidence that he had knowledge of the alleged
commission of the crime, the finding being based solely on presumption and suspicion, in total
disregard and violation of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved. He also contends that the RCA rice was brought to his store merely for deposit.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mendoza is liable as an accessory to the crime of Qualified theft?
RULING: Under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, accessories are "those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission" in any of the three ways
enumerated therein. One manner of participation which is pertinent to this case is "by profiting
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. "Based on the said
article the court finds Mendoza as an accessory to the crime. One of the reasons given by the
court in its decison is the testimony of Reponte that there was a previous understanding among
the accused to sell the stolen RCA rice to Mendoza. The latter's admission that the RCA rice was
brought to his store merely for deposit does not negate Reponte's testimony. Neither does it
exonerate him. Rather, it proves his complicity to the crime. The Court also noted that Mendoza
as a retailer of RCA rice should know that the RCA rice are supposed to be placed in the bodega
of the RCA and that they are distributed to the retailers not in big quantities such as in the
instant case. The inescapable conclusion is that he agreed to buy the goods which he knew was
stolen for certainly its price must be much lower. And even if he did not agree to buy but merely

to have it deposited in his premises, the obvious fact is that he knew that it was pilfered and he
agreed to assist in keeping the same and in profiting thereby.
The Court howrever, convicted Mendoza only for simple theft for there is insufficient proof that
the illegal taking is qualified under Article 310 of said Code. The situation may have been
different had Frank, who, allegedly, is actually Rogelio Suba y Gamboa and a security guard of
the RCA 14 been arrested and put on trial.