Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Robbery is the taking of personal property No. The law does not require proof of purchase of
belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means the stolen articles as mere possession thereof is
of violence against or intimidation of any person, or enough to give rise to a presumption of
using force upon anything. "Fencing", upon the fencing. (Dunlao vs. CA, G.R. No. 111343, August
other hand, is the act of any person who, with intent 22, 1996)
to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, Sec. 5 of PD 1416 provides: "Mere possession of
or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any good, article, item, object, or anything of value
any article, item, object or anything of value which which has been the subject of robbery or thievery
he knows, or should be known to him, to have been shall be prima facie evidence of fencing."
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural
or logical inference can arise from the established
The crimes of robbery and fencing are clearly then fact of possession of the proceeds of the crime of
two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does not robbery or theft. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, G.R.
require the accused to have participated in the No. 111426, July 11, 1994)
criminal design to commit, or to have been in any
wise involved in the commission of, the crime of Is there a need to prove intent to gain?
robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or
theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order No. Intent to gain need not to be proven in crimes
that it can be consummated. True, the object punishable by a special law such as the Anti-
property in fencing must have been previously Fencing Law. The crimes punishable by special
taken by means of either robbery or theft but the laws are called “acts mala prohibita”.
place where the robbery or theft occurs is The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in
inconsequential. It may not be suggested, for themselves called "acts mala in se," and acts which
instance, that, in the crime of bigamy which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law
presupposes a prior subsisting marriage of an forbids them, called "acts mala prohibita." This
distinction is important with reference to the intent 372 Phil. 93
with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the
subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs, PARDO, J.:
but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has
the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the The case before the Court is an appeal via certiorari from a
intent of the offender is immaterial. (Dunlao vs. decision of the Court of Appeals* affirming that of the Regional
CA, G.R. No. 111343, August 22, 1996) Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19,** convicting petitioner of the
crime of fencing.
Does the crime of fencing involve moral
turpitude? Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal
Industries, located at 301 Jose Abad Santos St., Tondo,
Yes. Moral turpitude is defined as an act of Manila, engaged in the business of manufacturing propellers or
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private spare parts for boats. Manuelito Mendez was one of the
duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to employees working for her. Sometime in February 1991,
society in general, contrary to the accepted and Manuelito Mendez left the employ of the company.
customary rule of right and duty between man and Complainant Lim noticed that some of the welding rods,
woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, propellers and boat spare parts, such as bronze and stainless
modesty, or good morals. propellers and brass screws were missing. She conducted an
inventory and discovered that propellers and stocks valued at
Moral turpitude is deducible from the third element. P48,000.00, more or less, were missing. Complainant Rosita
Actual knowledge by the “fence” of the fact that Lim informed Victor Sy, uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of the
property received is stolen displays the same loss. Subsequently, Manuelito Mendez was arrested in the
degree of malicious deprivation of one’s rightful Visayas and he admitted that he and his companion
property as that which animated the robbery or theft Gaudencio Dayop stole from the complainant's warehouse
which, by their very nature, are crimes of moral some boat spare parts such as bronze and stainless propellers
turpitude. And although the participation of each and brass screws. Manuelito Mendez asked for complainant's
forgiveness. He pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the one
felon in the unlawful taking differs in point in time
and in degree, both the “fence” and the actual who bought the stolen items and who paid the amount of
perpetrator/s of the robbery or theft invaded one’s P13,000.00, in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they split the
peaceful dominion for gain - thus deliberately amount with one another. Complainant did not file a case
against Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop.
reneging in the process “private duties” they owe
their “fellowmen” or “society” in a manner “contrary
to xxx accepted and customary rule of right and On relation of complainant Lim, an Assistant City Prosecutor of
duty, justice, honesty or good morals.” The duty not Manila filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 19,
an information against petitioner charging him with violation of
to appropriate, or to return, anything acquired either
Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) committed
by mistake or with malice is so basic it finds
as follows:
expression in some key provisions of the Civil Code
on “Human Relations” and “Solutio Indebiti. (Dela
"That on or about the last week of February 1991, in the City of
Torre vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996)
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously knowingly receive, keep,
acquire and possess several spare parts and items for fishing
boats all valued at P48,130.00 belonging to Rosita Lim, which
he knew or should have known to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of theft.
Contrary to law."
VICTORY [sic] SY stated that he knows both Manuelito He likewise denied having talked to Manuelito Mendez over
Mendez and Mrs. Rosita Lim, the former being the nephew of the phone on the day of the delivery of the stolen items and
his wife while the latter is his auntie. That sometime in could not have accepted the said items personally for
February 1991, his auntie called up and informed him about everytime (sic) goods are delivered to his store, the same are
the spare parts stolen from the warehouse by Manuelito being accepted by his staff. It is not possible for him to be at
Mendez. So that he sent his son to Cebu and requested his his office at about 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock in the morning, because
kumpadre, a police officer of Sta. Catalina, Negros Occidental, he usually reported to his office at 9:00 o'clock. In connection
to arrest and bring Mendez back to Manila. When Mr. Mendez
with this case, he executed a counter-affidavit (Exhibits 2 and "The law on fencing does not require the accused to have
2-a).[1] participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been
in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery
On August 5, 1996, the trial court rendered decision, the or theft."[6]
dispositive portion of which reads:
Before the enactment of P. D. No. 1612 in 1979, the fence
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused RAMON C. could only be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of
TAN is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery or theft, as the term is defined in Article 19 of the
violating the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, otherwise known as Revised Penal Code, but the penalty was light as it was two (2)
Presidential Decree No. 1612, and sentences him to suffer the degrees lower than that prescribed for the principal.[7]
penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor and to indemnify Rosita P. D. No. 1612 was enacted to "impose heavy penalties on
Lim the value of the stolen merchandise purchased by him in persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and
the sum of P18,000.00. theft." Evidently, the accessory in the crimes of robbery and
theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal
"Costs against the accused. Code or under P.D. No. 1612. However, in the latter case, the
accused ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a
"SO ORDERED. principal in the crime of fencing. Otherwise stated, the crimes
of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the
"Manila, Philippines, August 5, 1996. other, are separate and distinct offenses.[8] The State may thus
choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code
"(s/t) ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA or P. D. No. 1612, although the preference for the latter would
"Judge" seem inevitable considering that fencing is malum prohibitum,
and P. D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing[9] and
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the
property.[10]
After due proceedings, on January 29, 1998, the Court of
Appeals rendered decision finding no error in the judgment In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we set out
appealed from, and affirming the same in toto. the essential elements of the crime of fencing as follows:
In due time, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion "1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
for reconsideration; however, on June 16, 1998, the Court of
Appeals denied the motion. "2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
Hence, this petition. possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item,
The issue raised is whether or not the prosecution has object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
successfully established the elements of fencing as against proceeds of the said crime;
petitioner.[2]
"3. The accused knows or should have known that the said
We resolve the issue in favor of petitioner. article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
"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 "4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, himself or for another."[11]
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, Consequently, "the prosecution must prove the guilt of the
or should be known to him, to have been derived from the accused by establishing the existence of all the elements of
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.'"[3] the crime charged." [12]
"Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to Short of evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt the
another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or existence of the essential elements of fencing, there can be no
intimidation of any person, or using force upon things."[4] conviction for such offense.[13] "It is an ancient principle of our
penal system that no one shall be found guilty of crime except
The crime of theft is committed if the taking is without violence upon proof beyond reasonable doubt (Perez vs.
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things.[5] Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 9)."[14]
mind's grasp with certitude and clarity. When knowledge of the
In this case, what was the evidence of the commission of theft existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such
independently of fencing? knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high
probability of its existence unless he actually believes that it
Complainant Rosita Lim testified that she lost certain items and does not exist. On the other hand, the words "should know"
Manuelito Mendez confessed that he stole those items and denote the fact that a person of reasonable prudence and
sold them to the accused. However, Rosita Lim never reported intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty
the theft or even loss to the police. She admitted that after to another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that
Manuelito Mendez, her former employee, confessed to the such fact exists. Knowledge refers to a mental state of
unlawful taking of the items, she forgave him, and did not awareness about a fact. Since the court cannot penetrate the
prosecute him. Theft is a public crime. It can be prosecuted de mind of an accused and state with certainty what is contained
oficio, or even without a private complainant, but it cannot be therein, it must determine such knowledge with care from the
without a victim. As complainant Rosita Lim reported no loss, overt acts of that person. And given two equally plausible
we cannot hold for certain that there was committed a crime of states of cognition or mental awareness, the court should
theft. Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent, choose the one which sustains the constitutional
that is, a crime of robbery or theft has been committed. presumption of innocence."[23]
There was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of Without petitioner knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he
another's property. True, witness Mendez admitted in an extra- cannot be guilty of "fencing". [24]
judicial confession that he sold the boat parts he had pilfered
from complainant to petitioner. However, an admission or Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the
confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in essential elements of fencing, and thus petitioner is entitled to
evidence only against the person admitting or an acquittal.
confessing.[15] Even on this, if given extra-judicially, the
confessant must have the assistance of counsel; otherwise, WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
the admission would be inadmissible in evidence against the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 20059
person so admitting.[16]Here, the extra-judicial confession of and hereby ACQUITS petitioner of the offense charged in
witness Mendez was not given with the assistance of counsel, Criminal Case No. 92-108222 of the Regional Trial Court,
hence, inadmissible against the witness. Neither may such Manila.
extra-judicial confession be considered evidence against
accused.[17] There must be corroboration by evidence Costs de oficio.
of corpus delicti to sustain a finding of guilt.[18] Corpus
delicti means the "body or substance of the crime, and, in its SO ORDERED.
primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed."[19] The "essential elements of theft are (1) Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-
the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to Santiago, JJ., concur.
another; (3) the taking away was done with intent of gain; (4)
the taking away was done without the consent of the owner;
and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or
intimidation against persons or force upon things (U. S. vs. De
Vera, 43 Phil. 1000)."[20] In theft, corpus delicti has two
elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner,
and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.[21] In this case, the
theft was not proved because complainant Rosita Lim did not
complain to the public authorities of the felonious taking of her
property. She sought out her former employee Manuelito
Mendez, who confessed that he stole certain articles from the
warehouse of the complainant and sold them to petitioner.
Such confession is insufficient to convict, without evidence
of corpus delicti.[22]