Tan v.

People
G.R. No. 134298 – 26 August 1999
Pardo, J.

Topic: Crimes Against Property – Batas Pambansa 22

Petitioners: Ramon C. Tan

Respondents: People of the Philippines

FACTS:
 Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries which is engaged in the business
of manufacturing propellers or spare parts for boats
 Feb 1991: One of the employees, Manuelito Mendez, left the company
 Lim noticed some of the welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts so she conducted an inventory,
and discovered stocks valued at P48k were missing
 Mendez was subsequently arrested in Visayas and admitted he and companion Gaudencio Dayop stole
from the warehouse, asking for Lim’s forgiveness
 Mendez said they sold the stolen items to Tan who paid P13k which the former and Dayop split
 Lim didn’t file a case anymore against the two
 Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila filed an information against Tan before Manila RTC Br 19,
charging him of violation of PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
 23 Nov 1992: Tan pleaded not guilty and waived pre-trial
 Summary of witnesses’ testimonies
Rosita Lim
 Same as facts above ()
 After Mendez admitted stealing from the warehouse and subsequently pointing to Tan as the buyer,
Lim talked to Tan, who denied the accusations
 Lim said some of their stocks were bought under the name of Asia Pacific, and were delivered to their
store and paid for by her husband
Manuelito Mendez
 Same as facts above ()
 He also said usually, it was Tan’s secretary who accepted the items delivered to Ramon Hardware
 Stolen items from the warehouse were placed in a sack and he talked to Mr. Tan first over the phone
before he delivered the spare parts
 Alleged it was Tan himself who accepted the stolen items in the morning (around 7-8am) and paid
P13,000.00 for them
Ramon Tan
 Businessman engaged in selling hardware (marine spare parts) in Manila
 Denied buying the {48k worth of stolen parts, and said he never met Mendez
 The two receipts amounting to P18k presented by Rosita Lim was not under his name but a William
Tan (Rosita’s husband)
 It was impossible for him to have received the stolen items since he reports at 9am in the office

RTC found Ramon Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Fencing Law
o 6 yrs 1 day to 10 yrs of prison mayor and indemnify Lim the value of the stolen items (P18k)

CA affirmed RTC, denied motion for reconsideration

ISSUE: W/N the prosecution has successfully established the elements of fencing against Tan? NO
RATIO:
 Fencing (Sec. 2 of P.D. 1612): 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
 Robbery: 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
 Theft: Committed if the taking is without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things
 Fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have
been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft

Elements of fencing (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People)

1. Robbery or theft has been committed;
2. 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;
3. 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

Element 1: Evidence of commission of theft independently of fencing

 Rosita never reported the theft or loss to the police, and even forgave Mendez after he confessed
 Theft is a public crime and can be prosecuted even without a complainant, but it cannot be without a
victim
 Since Rosita did not report any loss, Court cannot say there was theft  First element absent
 No sufficient proof of taking of another’s property
 Mendez’s extrajudicial confession he sold the boat parts is inadmissible  No assistance of counsel
 There must be corroboration by evidence of corpus delicti to sustain a finding of guilt
 Corpus delicti: body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the
crime has been actually committed

Elements of Theft (U.S. v. De Vera)

(1) taking of personal property
(2) property belongs to another
(3) taking away was done with intent of gain
(4) taking away was done without the consent of the owner
(5) taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things

Two elements of corpus delicti in theft: 1) property was lost by the owner; 2) lost by felonious taking

Element 3: No showing Tan knew or should have known the stolen articles were the ones sold to him

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and hereby
ACQUITS petitioner.