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.
Held: 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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment