Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Tan v.

People
[GR No. 134298, August 26, 1999]
Tan acquitted of anti-fencing act
Recit-Ready:
Petitioner Ramon Tan was convicted with fencing for buying stoled goods from Mendez and Dayop.
Mendez and Dayop stole the goods from Rosita Lim, who never reported the incident to the police
and forgave the two thieves extrajudicially. Tan went on appeal and denied that he bought the stolen
goods from the two. The Court ruled that he is not liable for fencing because there is not enough
evidence to do so. There was no report to the police of theft, which is an essential requirement of
fencing, hence, no such event took place as far as the law is concerned. The accused is presumed
innocent unless proven otherwise.
Facts:
- Petitioner Ramon Tan was convicted for violating P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the AntiFencing Law of 1979
- Complainant is Rosita Lim, the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries
- Lim alleged that supplies in her warehouse were stolen and that a former worker of her
named Manuelito Mendez and a Gaudencio Dayop stole welding rods, propeller, and spare
boat parts from her
- Mendez and Dayop told Lim that they sold the stolen goods to the petitioner and asked for
forgiveness from Lim which she gave both to Mendez and Dayop
- Mendez stated that he personally handed the items to Tan and talked to him over the phone,
but Tan denied the allegation
- The theft of Mendez and Dayop were never reported to the police and was settled extra
judicially
- P.D. 1612 defines fencing 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
- Essential elements of theft are:
o 1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
o 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;
o 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
o 4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.[11]
- Lim never reported the theft to the police, therefore, no record of such exists
Issue:
- Weather or not Ramon Tan is guilty of fencing
Held/Ratio:
- SC holds that Ramon Tan is not guilty of fencing since one of the requisites, which is theft, did not
take place. What is more, there was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known
that the very stolen articles were the ones sold to him.

S-ar putea să vă placă și