ARNOLD JAMES M.
YSIDORO, Petitioner, Petitioner was charged of the crime Fencing for
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
This case is about a municipal mayor charged with
illegal diversion of food intended for those suffering
from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of
reconsideration projects affecting the homes of
victims of calamities.
Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of rice
and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she
had already distributed food to the mother
volunteers, what remained could be given to the
CSAP beneficiaries. Mayor Ysidoro approved the
release and signed the withdrawal slip for four sacks
of rice and two boxes of sardines worth.
Alfredo Doller, former member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Leyte, filed the present complaint against
Ysidoro that the subject SFP goods were intended for
its target beneficiaries, Leyte’s malnourished
children. Thus, Ysidoro committed technical
malversation when he approved the distribution of
SFP goods to the CSAP beneficiaries. In his defense,
Ysidoro claims that the diversion of the subject goods
to a project also meant for the poor.
ISSUE:
WON good faith is a valid defense for technical
malversation.
RULING:
NO. Criminal intent is not an element of technical
malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for
a particular public purpose to another public
purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that
the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but
becomes a criminal offense because positive law
forbids its commission based on considerations of
public policy, order, and convenience. It is the
commission of an act as defined by the law, and not
the character or effect thereof, that determines
whether or not the provision has been violated.
Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely
irrelevant.
IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
buying Two Hundred Ten (210) cases of Coca Cola
products worth Php52,476.00 owned by and
belonging to the offended party Johnson Tan which
accused know, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
Theft, to the damage and prejudice of said owner.
Tan discovered that contrary to his instructions,
Lopez and Lariosa delivered the subject items to
petitioner's store. Tan then went to petitioner and
informed him that the delivery to his store was a
mistake and that he was pulling out the subject items
but the petitioner refused.
The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged. CA affirmed decision.
ISSUE:
WON CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for
the crime of Fencing.
RULING:
YES. The courts a quo correctly found that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of
Fencing. Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD
1612 creates a prima facie presumption of Fencing
from evidence of possession by the accused of any
good, article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
the property.
The proper penalty to be imposed on petitioner,
pertinent portions of Section 3 of PD 1612 read:
Section 3. Penalties. - Any person guilty of fencing
shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the
property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos;
but the total penalty which may be imposed shall
not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty
shall be termed reclusion temporal and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the
Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
Notably, while the crime of Fencing is defined and
penalized by a special penal law, the penalty
provided therein is taken from the nomenclature in
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BULU CHOWDURY, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
Bulu Chowduly and Josephine Ong were charged
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
The prosecution presented private complainants
Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja and Melvin Miranda. They
testified that Chowdury of Craftrade Overseas
Developers (Craftrade) interviewed them and
completed all the requirements but failed to deploy
them. Upon verification with the POEA, they learned
that Craftrade's license had already expired and has
not been renewed and that Chowdury, in his
personal capacity, was not a licensed recruiter.
Trial court found Chowdury guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment
in large scale.
ISSUE:
WON accused-appellant knowingly and
intentionally participated in the commission of the
crime charged.
RULING:
NO. Evidence shows that accused-appellant
interviewed private complainants in the months of
June, August and September in 1994 at Craftrade's
office. At that time, he was employed as interviewer
of Craftrade which was then operating under a
temporary authority given by the POEA pending
renewal of its license.
The prosecution failed to prove that accused-
appellant was aware of Craftrade's failure to register
his name with the POEA and that he actively
engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The
obligation to register its personnel with the POEA
belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere
employee of the agency cannot be expected to
know the legal requirements for its operation
The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA)
804219 states who shall be held liable for the offense,
thus:
The persons criminally liable for the above
offenses are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the
officers having control, management or
direction of their business shall be liable.
Private complainants are left with no remedy for the
wrong committed against them. The Department of
Justice may still file a complaint against the officers
having control, management or direction of the
business of Craftrade Overseas Developers
(Craftrade), so long as the offense has not yet
prescribed.
EVANGELINE LADONGA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS:
Evangeline Ladonga and her husband Adronico who
are regular customers in his pawnshop business of
complainant Oculam in Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
Ladonga spouses obtained a loan from him,
guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank
(UCPB) Check. The three checks bounced upon
presentment for the reason "CLOSED
ACCOUNT";when the Ladonga spouses failed to
redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he
filed a criminal complaint against them.
RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga
spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
B.P. Blg. 22. Adronico applied for probation which
was granted. On the other hand, petitioner brought
the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the
RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring
with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is
inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law;
moreover, she is not a signatory of the checks and
had no participation in the issuance. CA affirmed the
conviction of petitioner.
ISSUE:
WON CONSPIRACY IS APPLICABLE IN VIOLATIONS
OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 BY INVOKING THE
LAST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE
RULING:
NO. B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the
suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.
Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg.
22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. Indeed, in the recent case of Yu vs.
People, the Court applied suppletorily the provisions
on subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the
RPC to B.P. Blg. 22.
The suppletory application of the principle of
conspiracy in this case is analogous to the
application of the provision on principals under
Article 17 in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or
action in concert to achieve a criminal design is
shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary,
since all the conspirators are principals.
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures,
but by positive and conclusive evidence.
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and
mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in
itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the commission of
the crime with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
petitioner with moral certainty. Its evidence falls short
of the quantum of proof required for conviction.
Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of the
petitioner’s innocence must be upheld and she must
be acquitted.
JAIME ONG y ONG, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
Private complainant was the owner of forty-four (44)
Firestone truck tires. After appellant sold six (6) tires
sometime in January 1995, thirty-eight (38) tires
remained inside the warehouse.
Private complainant learned from caretaker Jose
Cabal that all thirty-eight (38) truck tires were stolen
from the warehouse, the gate of which was forcibly
opened. Private complainant, together with
caretaker Cabal, reported the robbery.
On February 24, 1995, private complainant chanced
upon Jong's Marketing, a store selling tires in Paco,
Manila, owned and operated by appellant. Private
complainant inquired if appellant was selling any
Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply Firestone tires, to
which the latter replied in the affirmative. Appellant
brought out a tire fitting the description, which
private complainant recognized as one of the tires
stolen from his warehouse, based on the chalk
marking and the serial number thereon.
A buy bust team was formed and was able to
confiscate thirteen (13) tires. Accused Ong in his
defense, alleged that he had been engaged in the
business of buying and selling tires for twenty-four
(24) years and denying that he had any knowledge
that he was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing.
RTC found that the prosecution had sufficiently
established that all thirteen (13) tires found. CA
affirmed.
ISSUE:
WON accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of PD 1612 or Anti-Fencing Law.
RULING:
Yes. Fencing is defined in Section 2(a) of P.D. 1612
as 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."
In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the
receipt issued to him by Go.1âwphi1 Logically, and
for all practical purposes, the issuance of a sales
invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate
transaction and may be raised as a defense in the
charge of fencing; however, that defense is
disputable. In this case, the validity of the issuance
of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution
was able to prove that Gold Link and its address
were fictitious.24Ong failed to overcome the
evidence presented by the prosecution and to
prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he
was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption
under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.
Fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates
a prima fqcie presumption of fencing from
evidence of possession by the accused of any
good, article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been the subject of robbery or theft; and
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of
the property.
IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged of the crime Fencing for
buying Two Hundred Ten (210) cases of Coca Cola
products worth Php52,476.00 owned by and
belonging to the offended party Johnson Tan which
accused know, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
Theft, to the damage and prejudice of said owner.

Tan discovered that contrary to his instructions,

Lopez and Lariosa delivered the subject items to
petitioner's store. Tan then went to petitioner and
informed him that the delivery to his store was a
mistake and that he was pulling out the subject items
but the petitioner refused.

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime charged. CA affirmed decision.

ISSUE:
WON CA correctly upheld petitioner's conviction for
the crime of Fencing.

RULING:

YES. The courts a quo correctly found that the

prosecution was able to establish beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of
Fencing. The essential elements of the crime of
fencing are as follows: (a) a crime of robbery or theft
has been committed; (b) the accused, who is not a
principal or an accomplice in the commission aof
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 crime of
robbery or theft; (c) the accused knew 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 (d)
there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain
for oneself or for another.