Title
Tan vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 134298
Decision Date
Aug 26, 1999
A proprietor accused Ramon Tan of fencing stolen goods. The Supreme Court acquitted Tan, ruling the prosecution failed to prove theft or Tan's knowledge of the items' stolen nature beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126888)

Procedural history

An information for violation of P.D. No. 1612 (fencing) was filed in the Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 19). Petitioner pleaded not guilty and waived pre‑trial. The prosecution presented witnesses including the complainant, Victor Sy, and the confessed thief Mendez. The defense presented the complainant and Mendez as hostile witnesses and petitioner testified. The trial court convicted petitioner of fencing and sentenced him to imprisonment (six years and one day to ten years of prision mayor) and ordered indemnity to the complainant in the amount of P18,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court.

Core factual findings

  • After an employee left in February 1991, complainant Lim conducted an inventory and found welding rods, propellers and other spare parts missing, with an estimated loss of around P48,000.
  • Mendez was later arrested in the Visayas; he told relatives and complainant that he and Dayop stole the items and sold them to petitioner, receiving P13,000 which they split.
  • Mendez executed an affidavit on April 12, 1991 (prepared by CIS personnel), and when confronted in Manila allegedly identified petitioner as the buyer.
  • Complainant did not file a formal complaint with the police and, after Mendez’s return and his plea for forgiveness, she did not prosecute Mendez. She acknowledged prior business dealings between her husband and petitioner and that some stocks were purchased under other names (Asia Pacific, William Tan).
  • Petitioner denied knowledge of any stolen goods, denied personal receipt or payment for the items, and claimed deliveries were accepted by his staff; he produced receipts and executed a counter‑affidavit.

Legal issue presented

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime of fencing under P.D. No. 1612 as charged against petitioner.

Elements and legal standards for fencing

The Supreme Court restated the elements of fencing (citing Dizon‑Pamintuan): (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the underlying theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, disposes of, or in any manner deals in goods derived from the proceeds of the theft; (3) the accused knows or should have known the goods were derived from a theft; and (4) the accused has intent to gain for himself or another. The Court also noted statutory and jurisprudential background: fencing under P.D. No. 1612 is distinct from being an accessory under the Revised Penal Code and carries heavier penalties; P.D. No. 1612 contains evidentiary presumptions but the prosecution still must prove all essential elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Requirement of corpus delicti and evidentiary limits of confessions

The Court emphasized that conviction for fencing presupposes an underlying theft or robbery — the corpus delicti of the property crime must be independently established. An extra‑judicial confession of the thief may be admissible only against the confessant and, when extra‑judicial, must have been made with the assistance of counsel; otherwise it is inadmissible against the person who made it. Moreover, a mere confession by the alleged thief does not substitute for independent proof of the fact that the owner suffered a felonious loss (i.e., the two components of corpus delicti: that property was lost by the owner and that it was lost by felonious taking). The Court applied these principles to require corroboration of Mendez’s extra‑judicial statements before using them to establish theft.

Court’s analysis as to the first element (existence of theft)

The Supreme Court found that the first essential element — that a theft or robbery was committed — was not sufficiently established. Although complainant Lim testified to missing property and Mendez made extra‑judicial admissions, the complainant never reported the loss to the police and affirmatively forgave Mendez without prosecuting him. The absence of a report to public authorities and the lack of independent proof of a felonious taking meant the corpus delicti of theft was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further held that Mendez’s extra‑judicial confession, not made with counsel, was inadmissible against him and in any event cannot be used as conclusive proof against petitioner; an exculpatory or inculpatory extra‑judicial admission of the thief does not relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove theft independently.

Court’s analysis as to the knowledge and intent elements

The Supreme Court also concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner knew or should have known the i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms